[Python-Dev] [RELEASE] Python 3.8.2rc2 is now available for testing

Python 3.8.2rc2 is the second release candidate of the second maintenance release of Python 3.8. Go get it here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-382rc2/ Why a second release candidate? The major reason for RC2 is that

[Python-Dev] Re: Python Language Summit at PyCon 2020

Just to remind everyone that signup to the language summit is still open for another 11 days. So far folks have proposed topic like: f-strings, CPython’s documentation, PEG parser, property-based testing, and more! We’ve received a number inquiries about the language summit, so here are some Q:

[Python-Dev] Re: Accepting PEP 584: Add Union Operators To dict

> In particular, you may want to update the implementations of defaultdict and > ordereddict. (are there others?) I have a checklist for PEP 584 follow-up PRs I'm planning to make after (and if) it is accepted. typeshed stubs, docs, and `defaultdict` were on it. I'll add `OrderedDict` as well

[Python-Dev] Re: Request to postpone some Python 3.9 incompatible changes to Python 3.10

> And proposed a first pull request to add again collections.Mapping: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/18245 FYI, this patch is adding a fixer to handling abstract base classes. It will be helpful for the migration to new changes. I hope someone reviews this. 2020년 2월 18일 (화) 오후 8:44,

[Python-Dev] Re: Request to postpone some Python 3.9 incompatible changes to Python 3.10

Hi, I created an issue: "Keep deprecated features in Python 3.9 to ease migration from Python 2.7, but remove in Python 3.10" https://bugs.python.org/issue39674 And proposed a first pull request to add again collections.Mapping: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/18545 Victor Le jeu. 23

[Python-Dev] PEP 614: Relaxing Grammar Restrictions On Decorators

PEP 614 has recently completed a round of review on Python-Ideas: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0614/ It proposes that the current decorator syntax restrictions be relaxed to allow any valid expression. Nobody has raised any objections, but I wanted to gather more feedback here prior to

[Python-Dev] Re: Accepting PEP 584: Add Union Operators To dict

> I am accepting this PEP. Congratulations Steven and Brandt! Thank you for your guidance, especially the suggestions late last year. And thanks Steven for taking me on as a co-author and shaping the bulk of the proposal. > Hm, the PEP should probably also link to that PR rather than to

[Python-Dev] Re: Accepting PEP 584: Add Union Operators To dict

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:40 AM Brandt Bucher wrote: > > Now, addressing Serhiy's points :)... > > > ...it was decided that `d1 | d2` also should ignore the types of the > operands and always return a dict. And it accepts only dicts, not general > mappings, in difference to `{**d1, **d2}`. So