Armin Rigo, 18.06.2012 23:29:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
Make cffi less buggy (check the tracker for new test cases ;-), faster
(closer to swig type wrappers), and easier to use than ctypes, and I am sure
there will be interest.
I would say it's already
Agreed, I would expect the same. I would think taking out the word
only and then flipping newer and older in the sentence would correct
it.
Will change.
On 64bit Windows with both 32bit and 64bit implementations of the same
(major.minor) Python version installed, the 64bit version will
Is there any provision for keeping the compiled
C code and distributing it along with an application?
Requiring a C compiler to be present at all times
could be a difficulty for Windows.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Is there any provision for keeping the compiled
C code and distributing it along with an application?
Requiring a C compiler to be present at all times
could be a difficulty for Windows.
We are aware of
Hi Stefan,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Any reason you didn't write the C parts in Cython?
'''As a general rule, when there is a design issue to resolve, we pick
the solution that is the “most C-like”.''' (from the documentation).
But you are welcome
On 06/18/2012 07:35 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
BTW, http://bugs.python.org/issue15008 has the latest implementation
attached (if anybody wants to play with it)
I've also posted the latest minor tweaks to the PEP, on behalf of Yury.
The new version is already live:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:41:44 +0200
brian.curtin python-check...@python.org wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/8281233ec648
changeset: 77514:8281233ec648
user:Brian Curtin br...@python.org
date:Mon Jun 18 18:41:07 2012 -0500
summary:
Fix #14772: Return the
Hi,
I'm working on this bug to fix it. http://bugs.python.org/issue15068
from sys import stdin
str=stdin.read()
hello
hello world
CTRL+D
CTRL+D
Can anyone tell me where is stdin.read() function defined?
Or where is sys.stdin defined?
Or which function is called for str=stdin.read() ?
Thanks
It depends on the Python version. In 3.3, for example, look into
Modules/_io/fileio.c
Eli
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM, gmspro gms...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on this bug to fix it. http://bugs.python.org/issue15068
from sys import stdin
str=stdin.read()
hello
hello world
Hi,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
gmspro gms...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on this bug to fix it. http://bugs.python.org/issue15068
I'm not sure why you think this is fixable, given the comments on the
tracker. What is your plan?
from sys import stdin
str=stdin.read()
On 19.06.12 15:13, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
sys.stdin
_io.TextIOWrapper name='stdin' mode='r' encoding='UTF-8'
So it's a TextIOWrapper from the _io module (which is really the
implementation of the io module). You'll find its source in
Modules/_io. TextIOWrapper objects are defined in
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Agreed, I would expect the same. I would think taking out the word
only and then flipping newer and older in the sentence would correct
it.
Will change.
On 64bit Windows with both 32bit and 64bit implementations of
Hello,
The new revision of PEP 362 has been posted:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/
Summary:
1. What was 'Signature.__deepcopy__' is now 'Signature.__copy__'.
__copy__ creates a shallow copy of Signature, shallow copying its
Parameters as well.
2. 'Signature.format()' was removed. I
I've limited this to minor issues, but kept python-dev in the loop
because some are questions, rather than merely editorial.
Based on: http://hg.python.org/peps/file/tip/pep-0362.txt
view pep-0362.txt @ 4466:659639095ace
Committing the latest changes to PEP 362 on behalf of Yury Selivanov.
Jim Jewett wrote:
48 * parameters : OrderedDict
49 An ordered mapping of parameters' names to the corresponding
50 Parameter objects (keyword-only arguments are in the same order
51 as listed in ``code.co_varnames``).
Are you really sure you want to promise the
Jim,
On 2012-06-19, at 11:33 AM, Jim Jewett wrote:
I've limited this to minor issues, but kept python-dev in the loop
because some are questions, rather than merely editorial.
Based on: http://hg.python.org/peps/file/tip/pep-0362.txt
view pep-0362.txt @ 4466:659639095ace
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Yury Selivanov
yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
Based on: http://hg.python.org/peps/file/tip/pep-0362.txt
view pep-0362.txt @ 4466:659639095ace
==
142 * args : tuple
143 Tuple of positional arguments values. Dynamically computed from
Yury Selivanov wrote:
Hello,
The new revision of PEP 362 has been posted:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/
Summary:
1. What was 'Signature.__deepcopy__' is now 'Signature.__copy__'.
__copy__ creates a shallow copy of Signature, shallow copying its
Parameters as well.
2.
On 2012-06-19, at 11:55 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Yury Selivanov wrote:
Hello,
The new revision of PEP 362 has been posted:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/
Summary:
1. What was 'Signature.__deepcopy__' is now 'Signature.__copy__'.
__copy__ creates a shallow copy of Signature,
Yury Selivanov wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 11:55 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Yury Selivanov wrote:
Hello,
The new revision of PEP 362 has been posted:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/
Summary:
1. What was 'Signature.__deepcopy__' is now 'Signature.__copy__'.
__copy__ creates a shallow copy
On 2012-06-19, at 1:03 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Yury Selivanov wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 11:55 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Yury Selivanov wrote:
Hello,
The new revision of PEP 362 has been posted:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/
Summary:
1. What was 'Signature.__deepcopy__' is now
On 2012-06-19, at 12:33 PM, Jim Jewett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Yury Selivanov
yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
Based on: http://hg.python.org/peps/file/tip/pep-0362.txt
view pep-0362.txt @ 4466:659639095ace
==
142 * args : tuple
143 Tuple of
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Yury Selivanov yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 12:33 PM, Jim Jewett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Yury Selivanov
yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
Based on: http://hg.python.org/peps/file/tip/pep-0362.txt
view pep-0362.txt @
Hi all,
We need to make a decision about the packaging module in Python 3.3.
Please read this message and breathe deeply before replying :)
[Sorry this ends up being so long; Tarek, Georg, Guido, I hope you
have the time to read it.]
Let me first summarize the history of packaging
Reverting and writing a full packaging PEP for 3.4 sounds like a wise
course of action to me.
Regards,
Nick.
--
Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Éric Araujo wrote:
This leaves (d), after long reflection, as my preferred
choice, even though I disliked the idea at first (and I fully expect
Tarek to feel the same way).
Thanks for reading; please express your opinion (especially Tarek as
d2 project lead, Georg as RM and Guido as BDFL).
On 19 June 2012 22:46, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
[...]
This leaves (d), after long reflection, as my preferred choice, even though
I disliked the idea at first (and I fully expect Tarek to feel the same
way).
I agree with Nick. It's regrettable, but this is probably the wisest
On 06/19/2012 05:46 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
Hi all,
We need to make a decision about the packaging module in Python 3.3.
Please read this message and breathe deeply before replying :)
...
With beta coming, a way to deal with that unfortunate situation needs to
be found. We could (a) grant an
On 2012-06-19, at 4:17 PM, Jim Jewett wrote:
I can tweak the PEP to make it more clear for those who don't know
that staticmethods are not exactly methods, but do we really need that?
I would prefer it, if only because it surprised me. When do
distinguish between methods, staticmethod isn't
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Yury Selivanov yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 1:03 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
At some point it was suggested that Signature be put in provisionally so we
could modify the API if needed -- are we doing that?
Well, it doesn't have much of an API
On 2012-06-19, at 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Yury Selivanov yselivanov...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 1:03 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
At some point it was suggested that Signature be put in provisionally so we
could modify the API if needed -- are we
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:46:30 -0400
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
I don’t think (a) would give us enough time; we really want a few
months (and releases) to hash out the API (most notably with the pip and
buildout developers) and clean the bdist situation. Likewise (c) would
On 2012-06-19, at 9:22 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
2. The constructor for Parameter objects should require that names for
positional-only parameters start with and end with to ensure
they can always be distinguished from standard parameters in
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 9:22 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
2. The constructor for Parameter objects should require that names for
positional-only parameters start with and end
On 2012-06-19, at 10:06 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 9:22 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
2. The constructor for Parameter objects should require that names
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Yury Selivanov
yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
6. I think return_annotation can safely be abbreviated to just
annotation. The fact it is on the Signature object rather than an
individual parameter is enough to
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 10:06 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
True, the check for name clashes in Signature (and the implied numeric
names) will cover the BoundArguments.parameters case
Nick, I also would like to keep
On 2012-06-19, at 9:22 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
7. The idea of immutable Signature objects does highlight an annoyance
with the attribute may be missing style APIs. To actually duplicate
a signature correctly, including its return annotation (and
On 2012-06-19, at 10:16 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Yury Selivanov
yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
10. Similar to the discussion of convenience properties on Signature
objects themselves, I now think we should drop the args and kwargs
Big -1 on this one. Look
Nick,
I started a new branch to experiment with immutable Signatures.
So far, almost everything works (except a couple unit-tests, that are
modifying now immutable Parameters Signatures)
https://bitbucket.org/1st1/cpython/changesets/tip/branch(%22pep362-2%22)
I hope tomorrow we get some
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Yury Selivanov
yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 9:22 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
7. The idea of immutable Signature objects does highlight an annoyance
with the attribute may be missing style APIs.
On 2012-06-19, at 10:16 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Yury Selivanov
yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
If we even keep that at all for the initial version of the API, the
direct default and annotation attributes would
Sorry, but I missed the announcement of an updated PEP.
It looks good to me! Also, I see no reason not to always use a 32bit
version of the launcher other than (a) the 64bit code already exists and
works and (b) it might mean it is no longer possible to do a complete
build of a 64bit Python
Nick nailed it (again).
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Reverting and writing a full packaging PEP for 3.4 sounds like a wise
course of action to me.
Regards,
Nick.
--
Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :)
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Yury Selivanov yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-19, at 11:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The constructor accepts an iterable of Parameter objects rather than a
mapping.
That's the code I've ended up with:
sig = signature(obj.__func__)
45 matches
Mail list logo
