Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Martin v. Löwis wrote: > It would still "suffer" from the cross-module issue: > > # a.py > from __future__ import items_is_iterator > def f(d): > return d.items > # b.py > import a > d = {} > print a.f(d) > > For compatibility with 2.x, a.f should really return a bound > method that returns lis

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

A.M. Kuchling schrieb: > What about turning all references to obj.items into the equivalent > bytecode for this: > > if isinstance(obj, dict): # XXX should this be 'type(obj) is dict'? >if <2.x behaviour>: _temp = obj.items >elif <3.x behaviour>: _temp = obj.iteritems > else: >_temp

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:40:22PM +0100, "Martin v. L??wis" wrote: > > Do I just suffer from having an overactive imagination? Are all of > > these implementation strategies impossible for some reason, and there > > are no others? > > Yes, and yes. What about turning all references to obj.items

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > Also, the exact strategy I suggested could be implemented in various > ways that might be efficient. Here are a few ways it might be made more > efficient than the straw many of one extra dict lookup per call to > keys() et. al.: I'm not saying that an efficient imple

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

> Why do you think that this would be that certainly possible? > I cannot imagine an efficient implementation. > > > Ah, but can you imagine an inefficient one? I think so (although one can never know until it's implemented). > If so, we're no longer > arguing about whether it's possib

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 1/13/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > It would certainly be possible to have: > >from __future__ import items_is_iter > > be the same as: > >__py3k_compat_items_is_iter__ = True > > and have the 2.x series' items() method check the globals

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 08:19 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Georg Brandl schrieb: >>> If Python 3.0 was simply a release which removed deprecated features, >>> there would clearly be no issue. I would update my code in advance of >>> the 3.0 release to not use any of those features being removed, and >>> I'm all set. B

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: >>There will certainly be demand for an asynchronous server in 3.0, > > To flip the question around: there might be a demand for Twisted in 3.0, > but will there be a demand for 3.0 in Twisted? It might just be easier > for everyone concerned to just continue maintainin

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > It would certainly be possible to have: > >from __future__ import items_is_iter > > be the same as: > >__py3k_compat_items_is_iter__ = True > > and have the 2.x series' items() method check the globals() of the > calling scope to identify the return value o

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Anthony Baxter schrieb: > There's a couple of ways I see it - we could add a "-3" command line > flag to enable 3.x compat, or maybe a from __future__ statement. > Although the latter would be a global thing, which is different to > how all existing from __future__s work, so probably not good.

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On 10:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>For practical reasons (we have enough work to be getting on with) PyPy >>is more-or-less ignoring Python 2.5 at the moment. After funding and >>so on, when there's less pressure, maybe it will seem worth it. Not >>soon though.

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 09:04 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I'm wondering if we might be going the wrong way about warning about >compatibility between 2.x and 3.x. Perhaps it might be better if the 3.0 >alpha had a 2.x compatibility mode command-line flag, which is removed late >in the beta cycle. Please, no. I don

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Georg Brandl wrote: > Martin v. Löwis schrieb: >> >> What does that mean for the example James gave: if dict.items is >> going to be an iterator in 3.0, what 2.x version can make it return >> an iterator, when it currently returns a list? >> >> There simply can't be a 2.x version that *introduces*

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 1/12/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, when this was talked about last time, I wrote PEP 3002 which > requests exactly this: > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3002/ > > It basically proposes that all backwards-incompatible changes be > discussed in a PEP somewhere, a

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 1/12/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Jan 12, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > > > Well, that is one of the cases in which that won't be possible ;) > > I think there will be at least three areas that will make porting a

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

At 11:59 AM 1/12/2007 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In order to do this, everything that has been changed in 3.0 has to have >some mechanism for working both ways in some 2.x release. I phrased this >as its "feature set" because I am not aware of any new functionality in >3.0 that simply isn

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 12, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > Well, that is one of the cases in which that won't be possible ;) I think there will be at least three areas that will make porting a challenge: - - APIs where the semantics have changed instead o

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Martin v. Löwis schrieb: > Georg Brandl schrieb: >>> If Python 3.0 was simply a release which removed deprecated features, >>> there would clearly be no issue. I would update my code in advance of >>> the 3.0 release to not use any of those features being removed, and >>> I'm all set. But tha

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 11:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> FWIW, I also agree with James that Python 3 shouldn't even be >> released until the 2.x series has reached parity with its feature >> set. However, if there's continuity in the version numbers >> instead of the release dates, I can at least explain to Twis

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Friday 12 January 2007 21:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If the plan is to provide a smooth transition, it would help a > lot to have this plan of foward and backward compatibility > documented somewhere very public. It's hard to find information > on Py3K right now, even if you know your way a

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 10:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >For practical reasons (we have enough work to be getting on with) PyPy >is more-or-less ignoring Python 2.5 at the moment. After funding and >so on, when there's less pressure, maybe it will seem worth it. Not >soon though. I think I know what you mean fro

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 07:56 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Additionally, without a 2.x<->3.x upgrade path 3.x is essentially a >new language, having to build a new userbase from scratch. Worse >yet, 2.x will suffer as people have the perception "Python 2? >That's a dead/abandoned language" It's worse than that. Thi

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 01:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Friday 12 January 2007 06:09, James Y Knight wrote: >> On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Benji York wrote: >> > Paul Moore wrote: >> >> How many other projects/packages anticipate *not* migrating to >> >> Py3K, I wonder? >> > >> > I certainly can't speak for the

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 11 Jan, 08:22 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On 1/11/07, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If the goal is really to have Py 3.0 be released later this year, >There will certainly be demand for an asynchronous server in 3.0, To flip the question around: there might be a demand for Twi

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Armin Rigo schrieb: >> Hi Paul, >> >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:10:10PM +, Paul Moore wrote: >>> How many other projects/packages anticipate *not* migrating to Py3K, I >>> wonder? >> >> FWIW: Psyco. > > What will PyPy do? It will certainly support

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Friday 12 January 2007 19:19, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Georg Brandl schrieb: > > It has always been planned that in those cases that allow it, > > the new way to do it will be introduced in a 2.x release too, > > and the old way removed only in 3.x. > > What does that mean for the example James

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Georg Brandl schrieb: >> If Python 3.0 was simply a release which removed deprecated features, >> there would clearly be no issue. I would update my code in advance of >> the 3.0 release to not use any of those features being removed, and >> I'm all set. But that's not what I'm hearing. Pytho

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Thursday 11 January 2007 05:13, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > It is my strong preference that we not go down this path. > Instead, the 2.6 vs 3.0 difference analysis should go in an > external lint utility. I don't see how an external utility can possibly catch everything that's going to break -

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Jan 11, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote: > I'm plan to try and make the transition as painless as possible. I'm glad to hear it. > The goal is to have a first alpha sometime this year - there is > absolutely no chance of a 3.0 final this year. Duly noted. >> Basically: my plea is: ple

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Friday 12 January 2007 06:09, James Y Knight wrote: > On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Benji York wrote: > > Paul Moore wrote: > >> How many other projects/packages anticipate *not* migrating to > >> Py3K, I wonder? > > > > I certainly can't speak for the project as a whole, but I > > anticipate a f

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Armin Rigo schrieb: > Hi Paul, > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:10:10PM +, Paul Moore wrote: >> How many other projects/packages anticipate *not* migrating to Py3K, I >> wonder? > > FWIW: Psyco. What will PyPy do? It will certainly support compiling Py3k code at some point, but will the codeb

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Hi Paul, On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:10:10PM +, Paul Moore wrote: > How many other projects/packages anticipate *not* migrating to Py3K, I wonder? FWIW: Psyco. Armin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/l

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Mike Orr wrote: [...] > > How did Perl 4 and Perl 5 handle the situation? I basically waited > 2-3 years after Perl 5 came out, then started programming the new way. > If it mattered (it didn't), I would have tied my applications > specifically to Perl 4. > It's probably a good job you aren't h

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 1/11/07, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the goal is really to have Py 3.0 be released later this year, 3.0 alpha is scheduled for this year. 3.0 final is not scheduled till next year, and of course another level of tweaks will have to be made after it's been in the Real World f

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

James Y Knight schrieb: > If Python 3.0 was simply a release which removed deprecated features, > there would clearly be no issue. I would update my code in advance of > the 3.0 release to not use any of those features being removed, and > I'm all set. But that's not what I'm hearing. Python

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Benji York wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: >> How many other projects/packages anticipate *not* migrating to >> Py3K, I wonder? > > I certainly can't speak for the project as a whole, but I anticipate a > fair bit of work to port Zope 3 (100+ KLOC) to Python 3.0. I (anot

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 10 Jan, 11:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On 10/01/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>I've been assuming for some time that the only hope for Py3k compatibility >>within Twisted would be using PyPy as a translation layer. >Does this ring as many warning bells for me as it does

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:04:05PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > [Anthony Baxter] > > I've had a number of people say that this is something they would > > really, really like to see - the idea is both to let people migrate > > more easily, and provide reassurance that it won't be that bad to

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

[Anthony Baxter] > I've had a number of people say that this is something they would > really, really like to see - the idea is both to let people migrate > more easily, and provide reassurance that it won't be that bad to > migrate! If Py3.0 is going to come out before Py2.6, can we table the

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Thursday 11 January 2007 06:32, Georg Brandl wrote: > I guess there are quite a few people who won't start moving to > Python 3.0 with 2.6, or even when 3.1 is out, as long as their > program works fine with the 2.x line. There's no need to punish > them with extra overhead. Checking a single C

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On Thursday 11 January 2007 07:48, Thomas Wouters wrote: > They serve a different purpose, and it isn't taking any time away > from me (or Anthony, I can confidently guess) working on 2to3. Correct. Note that checking for something like dict.has_key is going to be far far more reliable from insid

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

At 11:10 PM 1/10/2007 +, Paul Moore wrote: >On 10/01/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been assuming for some time that the only hope for Py3k compatibility > > within Twisted would be using PyPy as a translation layer. > >Does this ring as many warning bells for me as i

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Paul Moore wrote: > How many other projects/packages anticipate *not* migrating to Py3K, I wonder? I certainly can't speak for the project as a whole, but I anticipate a fair bit of work to port Zope 3 (100+ KLOC) to Python 3.0. -- Benji York ___ Python

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 10/01/07, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does this ring as many warning bells for me as it does for others? ... for others as it does for me ... Doh. Paul ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listi

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 10/01/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been assuming for some time that the only hope for Py3k compatibility > within Twisted would be using PyPy as a translation layer. Does this ring as many warning bells for me as it does for others? I know very little about the curren

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Thomas Wouters wrote: [...] > > Ok, so, you're actually agreeing, except for the DeprecationWarning > subclassing. There was never an intent to display these py3k deprecation > warnings without an explicit flag (at least, not in this thread.) > Hopefully that puts some people at ease. > If the

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 1/10/07, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thomas Wouters wrote: > > > On 1/10/07, *Steve Holden* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Collin Winter wrote: > > On 1/10/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > >

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Thomas Wouters wrote: > > > On 1/10/07, *Steve Holden* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Collin Winter wrote: > > On 1/10/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > >> On 1/10/07, Raymond Hettinger < [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 07:42 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On 1/10/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >><"Anthony Baxter"> >> > Comments? What else should get warnings? >> >>It is my strong preference that we not go down this path. >>Instead, the 2.6 vs 3.0 difference analysis should go in an >>extern

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

sorry this is actually more an answer to Raymond's email but I accendidentally delete it some I'm replying there. On Wednesday 10 January à 20:42, Thomas Wouters wrote: > On 1/10/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <"Anthony Baxter"> > > Comments? What else should get war

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

[Thomas Wouters] > By Guido's plan, 3.0 will arrive well before 2.6, and the migration step is > not as > large as many fear it to be. Having Python 2.6 optionally warn for > 3.0-compatibility > is a lot easier for the average developer than having a separate tool or a > separately > compiled P

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 1/10/07, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Collin Winter wrote: > On 1/10/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 1/10/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It is my strong preference that we not go down this path. >>> Instead, the 2.6 vs 3.0 difference analys

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

Collin Winter wrote: > On 1/10/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 1/10/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It is my strong preference that we not go down this path. >>> Instead, the 2.6 vs 3.0 difference analysis should go in an >>> external lint utility. >>> >>> T

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 1/10/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/10/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is my strong preference that we not go down this path. > > Instead, the 2.6 vs 3.0 difference analysis should go in an > > external lint utility. > > > > The Py2.x series may live

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Thomas Wouters wrote: > The idea is that we only generate the warnings optionally, only for > things > that can be written in a manner compatible with prevalent Python > versions, > and in the most efficient manner we

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

On 1/10/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <"Anthony Baxter"> > Comments? What else should get warnings? It is my strong preference that we not go down this path. Instead, the 2.6 vs 3.0 difference analysis should go in an external lint utility. The Py2.x series may live-on for s

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

<"Anthony Baxter"> > Comments? What else should get warnings? It is my strong preference that we not go down this path. Instead, the 2.6 vs 3.0 difference analysis should go in an external lint utility. The Py2.x series may live-on for some time and should do so as if Py3.x did not exist. Bur

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

cc'ing python-dev - followups should probably go there, rather than the p3yk list. So here's my latest plan: - Add a Py3KDeprecationWarning, as a subclass of DeprecationWarning (or maybe just of Warning) - Add a -W py3k shortcut, which is the same as "-W once:Py3kDeprecationWarning" - Add a C