Re: [Python-Dev] Is static typing still optional?

On 1/6/2018 5:13 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote: On 12/10/2017 5:00 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: ... 2) Change the default value for "hash" from "None" to "False".  This might take a little effort because there is currently an oddity where setting hash=False causes it to be hashable.  I'm pretty su

Re: [Python-Dev] Guido's Python 1.0.0 Announcement from 27 Jan 1994

Guido van Rossum wrote: > For me personally, the fondest memories are of 1.5.2, which Paul Everitt > declared, while we were well into 2.x territory, was still the best Python > ever. (I didn't agree, but 1.5.2 did serve us very well for a long time.) That makes me feel better about the fact that

[Python-Dev] Sad buildbots

Hi, It seems like the feature freeze is close: while I usually get 2 emails/day at maximum on buildbot-status, I got 14 emails during the weekend: https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/buildbot-sta...@python.org/ (are all buildbots red? :-p) I will not have the bandwidth to analyze all buildb

Re: [Python-Dev] Sad buildbots

On Jan 28, 2018, at 18:00, Victor Stinner wrote: > It seems like the feature freeze is close: while I usually get 2 > emails/day at maximum on buildbot-status, I got 14 emails during the > weekend: > https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/buildbot-sta...@python.org/ > (are all buildbots red? :-

Re: [Python-Dev] Is static typing still optional?

>>> 2) Change the default value for "hash" from "None" to "False". This might >>> take a little effort because there is currently an oddity where setting >>> hash=False causes it to be hashable. I'm pretty sure this wasn't intended >>> ;-) >> I haven't looked at this yet. > > I think the has

Re: [Python-Dev] Is static typing still optional?

I think this is a good candidate for fine-tuning during the beta period. Though honestly Python's own rules for when a class is hashable or not are the root cause for the complexity here -- since we decided to implicitly set __hash__ = None when you define __eq__, it's hardly surprising that datac

[Python-Dev] Making "-j0" the default setting for the test suite?

On my current system, "make test" runs in around 3 minutes, while "./python -m test" runs in around 16 minutes. And that's with "make test" actually running more tests (since it enables several of the "-u" options). The difference is that "make test" passes "-j0" and hence not only uses all the av

Re: [Python-Dev] Making "-j0" the default setting for the test suite?

So why can't you just run "make test" if that's faster? On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On my current system, "make test" runs in around 3 minutes, while > "./python -m test" runs in around 16 minutes. And that's with "make > test" actually running more tests (since it ena

Re: [Python-Dev] Making "-j0" the default setting for the test suite?

On 1/28/2018 11:43 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: So why can't you just run "make test" if that's faster? Not a standard option on Windows ;-). On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Nick Coghlan > wrote: On my current system, "make test" runs in around 3 minutes, while

Re: [Python-Dev] Making "-j0" the default setting for the test suite?

On 29 January 2018 at 14:43, Guido van Rossum wrote: > So why can't you just run "make test" if that's faster? I can (and do), but I also run it the other way if I need to pass additional options. I'll then notice that I forgot -j0, ctrl-C out, then run it again with -j0. That's a minor irritati

Re: [Python-Dev] Making "-j0" the default setting for the test suite?

On 1/28/2018 9:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: The speedup would be even better but for the last very long running test. Could the last very long running test be started first, instead? (maybe it is, or maybe there are reasons not to) ___ Python-Dev mailing

Re: [Python-Dev] Is static typing still optional?

On 29 January 2018 at 12:08, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I think this is a good candidate for fine-tuning during the beta period. > > Though honestly Python's own rules for when a class is hashable or not are > the root cause for the complexity here -- since we decided to implicitly set > __hash__ =

Re: [Python-Dev] Is static typing still optional?

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:36 AM Nick Coghlan wrote: > [...] > Currently the answers are: > > - A: not hashable > - B: hashable (by identity) # Wat? > - C: hashable (by field hash) > - D: hashable (by identity) # Wat? > - E: hashable (by field hash) > - F: hashable (by field hash) > - G: hashable

Re: [Python-Dev] Is static typing still optional?

On 1/29/2018 1:55 AM, Yury Selivanov wrote: On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:36 AM Nick Coghlan > wrote: [...] Currently the answers are: - A: not hashable - B: hashable (by identity) # Wat? - C: hashable (by field hash) - D: hashable (by identity)