Steve Holden writes:
> In which case, wouldn't "_" make a better literal prefix than "i"?
There's no reason to suppose that "i" would be drop-in compatible for
GNU gettext (for example, gettext purely deals with the message
catalog lookup, while i-strings might be able to deal with currency
In which case, wouldn't "_" make a better literal prefix than "i"?
A better comparison might be between _"..." and f"...".
regards
Steve Holden
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:37 AM Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 04.12.19 16:02, Anders Munch пише:
> > Victor Stinner [mailto:vstin...@python.org] wrote:
>
Le jeu. 5 déc. 2019 à 12:14, Thomas Wouters a écrit :
> It should, but it doesn't always :) If you forget how your data is flawed,
> the 'smarter' decision can easily be wrong, instead. I do think it's a good
> idea to reject ideas that would break a certain number of PyPI packages, say,
> but
Please try to get an email client which is able to reply in a thread,
rather than creating a new thread each time you send an email.
You might want to try HyperKitty:
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/
Victor
Le jeu. 5 déc. 2019 à 10:50, Anders Munch a écrit :
>
> >>
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 6:37 PM Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le mer. 4 déc. 2019 à 14:49, Thomas Wouters a écrit :
> >> (...)
> >> It's very different if an incompatible change break 1% or 90% of
> >> Python projects.
> >
> > Unfortunately there is a distinctive bias if you select popular
> projects,
>> I'm struggling to see what i-strings would do for i18n that str.format
>> doesn't do better.
Serhiy Storchaka [mailto:storch...@gmail.com]
> You would not need to repeat yourself.
> _('{name} costs ${price:.2f}').format(name=name, price=price)
A small price to pay for having a
Barry Warsaw [mailto:ba...@python.org] wrote:
> str.format() really isn’t enough to do proper i18n; it’s actually a fairly
> complex topic.
Obviously.
> I’m not convinced that PEP 501 would provide much benefit on the technical
> side.
My point exactly.
> flufl.i18n -
04.12.19 16:02, Anders Munch пише:
Victor Stinner [mailto:vstin...@python.org] wrote:
You may want to have a look at the deferred PEP 501 -- General purpose string
interpolation:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0501/
I'm struggling to see what i-strings would do for i18n that str.format
On Dec 4, 2019, at 06:02, Anders Munch wrote:
>
> Victor Stinner [mailto:vstin...@python.org] wrote:
>> You may want to have a look at the deferred PEP 501 -- General purpose
>> string interpolation:
>> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0501/
>
> I'm struggling to see what i-strings would do
On 12/3/19 1:07 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 12/03/2019 09:16 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
The 'u" string literal prefix was removed in 3.0 and reintroduced in
3.3 to help writing the code compatible with Python 2 and 3 [1].
After the dead of Python 2.7 we will remove some deprecated features
Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 4/12/19 8:41 am, Christian Heimes wrote:
> > I'm strongly against removing it from Python 3 or
> > even
> > raising a deprecation warning.
> > I agree. I know there is a maintenance cost to keeping
> things like this around, but in this case it's pretty
> minor. We've
On 2019-12-03 18:41, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> Has anyone yet given a reason to remove it? It will change working code into
> broken code. Why do that?
I've heard a few complaints over the years about the number of combinations of
string prefixes being a problem and a high barrier to new ones
Le mer. 4 déc. 2019 à 14:49, Thomas Wouters a écrit :
>> (...)
>> It's very different if an incompatible change break 1% or 90% of
>> Python projects.
>
> Unfortunately there is a distinctive bias if you select popular projects, or
> even packages from PyPI. There is a very large body of work
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:35 AM Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 12/4/19 3:11 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> > Why the "<>" operator and the "L" suffix was removed?
>
> Is this a serious question? Many things were removed in moving from
> Python 2 to Python 3. It was explicitly decided that 2->3 would
Victor Stinner [mailto:vstin...@python.org] wrote:
> You may want to have a look at the deferred PEP 501 -- General purpose string
> interpolation:
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0501/
I'm struggling to see what i-strings would do for i18n that str.format doesn't
do better.
regards,
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:26 PM Victor Stinner wrote:
> INADA-san:
> > We need to avoid major breakage.
> > But we accept small breakages on every minor release.
> > And u-prefix is major for now.
>
> IMHO we need a metric to measure the risk of an incompatible change:
> estimate the percentage
> Instead, we can do:
>
> * Don't recommend u-prefix except in Python 2&3 code.
> * Provide a tool to remove the u-prefix.
Great idea, +1 from me.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, 8:39 AM Inada Naoki wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 11:49 AM Ned Batchelder
> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/3/19 8:13 PM, Inada Naoki
INADA-san:
> We need to avoid major breakage.
> But we accept small breakages on every minor release.
> And u-prefix is major for now.
IMHO we need a metric to measure the risk of an incompatible change:
estimate the percentage of broken Python applications. For example,
run the test suite of the
>
> Is this a serious question? Many things were removed in moving from
> Python 2 to Python 3.
We remove garbages not only between 2 and 3.
We regularly remove garbages.
https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.8.html#api-and-feature-removals
You may want to have a look at the deferred PEP 501 -- General purpose
string interpolation:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0501/
It was proposed while PEP 498 -- Literal String Interpolation
(f-string) was being discussed, which was accepted:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0498/
PEP
On 12/4/19 3:11 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
04.12.19 04:41, Ned Batchelder пише:
On 12/3/19 8:13 PM, Inada Naoki wrote:
I think it is too early to determine when to remove it.
Even only talking about it causes blaming war.
Has anyone yet given a reason to remove it? It will change working
Le mer. 4 déc. 2019 à 06:41, Inada Naoki a écrit :
> Currently, u-prefix is very widely used. It shouldn't be removed anytime
> soon.
> And I agree that we shouldn't raise DeprecationWarning for now.
>
> But how about 5, 10, and 20 years later? No one knows it.
> Let's stop discussing it. It
Chris Angelico [mailto:ros...@gmail.com] wrote:
> The first one is already the case. PEP 414 reintroduced the u"..." literal
> form, specifically
> as a porting tool. Given that it has absolutely zero value in pure Py3 code
> [...]
Challenge accepted :) Here comes my https://xkcd.com/1172/
04.12.19 04:41, Ned Batchelder пише:
On 12/3/19 8:13 PM, Inada Naoki wrote:
I think it is too early to determine when to remove it.
Even only talking about it causes blaming war.
Has anyone yet given a reason to remove it? It will change working code
into broken code. Why do that?
Why the
03.12.19 23:44, Ned Batchelder пише:
On 12/3/19 12:16 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
The 'u" string literal prefix was removed in 3.0 and reintroduced in
3.3 to help writing the code compatible with Python 2 and 3 [1]. After
the dead of Python 2.7 we will remove some deprecated features kept
for
03.12.19 19:31, Guido van Rossum пише:
I think it’s too soon to worry about this. I don’t see a reason to
harass people who maintain code based that were just recently migrated.
Yes, I also think that it is too early to deprecate it just now. Python
2 is not completely dead yet. But I would
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:22 PM Kyle Stanley wrote:
>
> > BTW, I think 2to3 can help to move from 2&3 code to 3-only code.
>
> > Instead, we can do:
>
> > * Don't recommend u-prefix except in Python 2&3 code.
> > * Provide a tool to remove the u-prefix.
>
> +1, this seems like the smoothest way of
> BTW, I think 2to3 can help to move from 2&3 code to 3-only code.
> Instead, we can do:
> * Don't recommend u-prefix except in Python 2&3 code.
> * Provide a tool to remove the u-prefix.
+1, this seems like the smoothest way of handling it and has very minimal
impact on users. In 5+ years from
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 11:49 AM Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
> On 12/3/19 8:13 PM, Inada Naoki wrote:
> > I think it is too early to determine when to remove it.
> > Even only talking about it causes blaming war.
>
> Has anyone yet given a reason to remove it?
Note that "never" is included in ”when".
On 12/3/19 8:13 PM, Inada Naoki wrote:
I think it is too early to determine when to remove it.
Even only talking about it causes blaming war.
Has anyone yet given a reason to remove it? It will change working code
into broken code. Why do that?
--Ned.
BTW, I think 2to3 can help to move
I think it is too early to determine when to remove it.
Even only talking about it causes blaming war.
BTW, I think 2to3 can help to move from 2&3 code to 3-only code.
* "future" fixer can be remove legacy futures. But it seems to remove
all futures,
including "annotations". It should be
On 4/12/19 8:41 am, Christian Heimes wrote:
I'm strongly against removing it from Python 3 or even
raising a deprecation warning.
I agree. I know there is a maintenance cost to keeping
things like this around, but in this case it's pretty
minor. We've probably already spent more time
On 12/3/19 12:16 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
The 'u" string literal prefix was removed in 3.0 and reintroduced in
3.3 to help writing the code compatible with Python 2 and 3 [1]. After
the dead of Python 2.7 we will remove some deprecated features kept
for compatibility with 2.7. When we are
On 12/3/19 2:41 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
On 03/12/2019 19.09, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Dec 3, 2019, at 09:16, Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
The 'u" string literal prefix was removed in 3.0 and reintroduced
in 3.3 to help writing the code compatible with Python 2 and 3
[1]. After the dead of Python
On 12/3/2019 3:35 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
On 03/12/2019 21.04, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 12/03/2019 09:31 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I think it’s too soon to worry about this. I don’t see a reason to
harass people who maintain code based that were just recently migrated.
I'm happy to go
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 09:31:22 -0800
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think it’s too soon to worry about this. I don’t see a reason to harass
> people who maintain code based that were just recently migrated.
Agreed with Guido. Let's wait a couple more years and rethink it.
Regards
Antoine.
Guido> I think it’s too soon to worry about this.
Simon> +100
Ditto. Besides, isn't support for u"..." just a variable and a couple
tests in the earliest phase of compilation? If things are going to get
deprecated/removed, I'd prefer the focus be placed on those bits which
present a significant
On 03/12/2019 21.04, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 12/03/2019 09:31 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> I think it’s too soon to worry about this. I don’t see a reason to
>> harass people who maintain code based that were just recently migrated.
>
> I'm happy to go with this, since my libraries still do
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:42 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think it’s too soon to worry about this. I don’t see a reason to harass
> people who maintain code based that were just recently migrated.
>
+100
___
Python-Dev mailing list --
On 12/03/2019 09:31 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I think it’s too soon to worry about this. I don’t see a reason to harass
people who maintain code based that were just recently migrated.
I'm happy to go with this, since my libraries still do the 2/3 straddle.
Do we want to set a
On 03/12/2019 19.09, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2019, at 09:16, Serhiy Storchaka
> wrote:
>>
>> The 'u" string literal prefix was removed in 3.0 and reintroduced
>> in 3.3 to help writing the code compatible with Python 2 and 3
>> [1]. After the dead of Python 2.7 we will remove some
On 12/3/19 6:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think it’s too soon to worry about this. I don’t see a reason to harass
> people who maintain code based that were just recently migrated.
+1 ... or code that will be migrated in the (near) future ;-) ...
Regards,
francismb
On 12/03/2019 09:16 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
The 'u" string literal prefix was removed in 3.0 and reintroduced in 3.3 to help writing
the code compatible with Python 2 and 3 [1]. After the dead of Python 2.7 we will remove some
deprecated features kept for compatibility with 2.7. When we
On Dec 3, 2019, at 09:16, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>
> The 'u" string literal prefix was removed in 3.0 and reintroduced in 3.3 to
> help writing the code compatible with Python 2 and 3 [1]. After the dead of
> Python 2.7 we will remove some deprecated features kept for compatibility
> with
On 03/12/2019 17:16, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
The 'u" string literal prefix was removed in 3.0 and reintroduced in 3.3
to help writing the code compatible with Python 2 and 3 [1]. After the
dead of Python 2.7 we will remove some deprecated features kept for
compatibility with 2.7. When we are
I think it’s too soon to worry about this. I don’t see a reason to harass
people who maintain code based that were just recently migrated.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 09:21 Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> The 'u" string literal prefix was removed in 3.0 and reintroduced in 3.3
> to help writing the code
46 matches
Mail list logo
