Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
*(I sometimes lose track of which changes were made in both branches
pre-2.7, which ones were mode post-2.7 release, and which ones went in
pre-2.7, but were 3.x only regardless)
Right. I missed that it was
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:01:42 +0100
Łukasz Langa luk...@langa.pl wrote:
Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
*(I sometimes lose track of which changes were made in both branches
pre-2.7, which ones were mode post-2.7 release, and which ones went in
On Dec 12, 2010, at 02:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:01:42 +0100
Łukasz Langa luk...@langa.pl wrote:
Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
*(I sometimes lose track of which changes were made in both branches
pre-2.7, which ones
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I really like that much better than Java-like accessor functions.
Do you actually use sysconfig yourself? It's quite a specialized
module, and I don't think API elegance arguments have a great weight
here.
I would
Lukasz Langa luk...@langa.pl wrote:
Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
Right. I missed that it was already in 2.7.
So, now we're stuck with it, forever.
Why not deprecate it for 3.2 (easy since it's probably not yet used anywhere
anyway,
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Dec 12, 2010, at 02:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:01:42 +0100
Łukasz Langa luk...@langa.pl wrote:
Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
*(I sometimes lose
Sorry to get late in the discussion I am travelling.
Nick resumes well the motivations behind sysconfig.
I'll emphase that this module could hold more functions in the future that
could be useful to other python implementations to abstract what is a python
installation. E.g. more than paths and
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:55:25 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 12/10/2010 4:59 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Like Éric, I'm not sure what the implications of the existing module
having been released in 2.7
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:55:25 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 12/10/2010 4:59 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Like Éric, I'm not
On Dec 11, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:55:25 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 12/10/2010 4:59
Hi,
Original discussion for the sysconfig module was short:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-May/089520.html
Tarek will reply better, but I think the issue to solve was to move
sysconfig out of distutils, improving its API a bit in the process but
not overhauling it completely.
On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
Final note: with 3.2 being in beta, I don’t know how much can be changed
now.
Part of the purpose of a beta, and in our case, two betas is to give
people a chance to exercise new APIs and fix them before they
become set in stone two months later.
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:27:26 -0800
Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, sysconfig did not warrant a whole module.
Where would you put it?
Rather than using two levels of dictionary, it's also possible
to use a named tuple if you think that is more clean looking:
On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:27:26 -0800
Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, sysconfig did not warrant a whole module.
Where would you put it?
A single function in the sys module.
Rather than using two levels of
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:18:14 -0800, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this needed a separate module and so many accessor
functions?
Originally sysconfig was moved *out* of distutils, and distutils was
changed to use it. But that proved to be as fragile
On 12/10/2010 4:59 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Like Éric, I'm not sure what the implications of the existing module
having been released in 2.7 and 3.2 beta are in terms of making such an
API change.
I am with Raymond on this: the purpose of betas is so we can test *and*
make changes. No one
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 7:59 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:18:14 -0800, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
ISTM it mostly could have been reduced to single call returning a nested
dictionary.
If what was returned was, as you
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 12/10/2010 4:59 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Like Éric, I'm not sure what the implications of the existing module
having been released in 2.7 and 3.2 beta are in terms of making such an
API change.
I am with Raymond on
Does anyone know why this needed a separate module and so many accessor
functions?
ISTM it mostly could have been reduced to single call returning a nested
dictionary.
Raymond
from sysconfig import *
import json
def sysconf():
return dict(paths = get_paths(),
config_vars
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know why this needed a separate module and so many accessor
functions?
ISTM it mostly could have been reduced to single call returning a nested
dictionary.
Tarek will likely answer for
20 matches
Mail list logo
