Re: [Python-Dev] On the METH_FASTCALL calling convention

On 2018-07-06 06:07, INADA Naoki wrote: Maybe, one way to improve METH_FASTCALL | METH_KEYWORDS can be this. kwds can be either tuple or dict. But that would be just pushing the complexity down to the callee. I'd rather have a simpler protocol at the expense of a slightly more complex

Re: [Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:50 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2018-07-05 14:20, INADA Naoki wrote: > > like you ignored my advice about creating realistic benchmark for > > calling 3rd party callable before talking about performance... > > I didn't really want to ignore that, I just didn't know

Re: [Python-Dev] Symmetric vs asymmetric symbols (was PEP 572: Do we really need a ":" in ":="?)

On 06.07.2018 7:02, Chris Angelico wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: Python really has a strong C legacy and this is the area where I agree that C designers made a mistake by picking a symmetric symbol (=) for an asymmetric operation. On top of that, they

Re: [Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580

On 2018-07-05 21:57, Guido van Rossum wrote: Would it be possible to get outside experts to help? I don't understand what you mean: to help with what? Designing the PEP? Discussing the PEP? Accepting the PEP? Lobbying Python core devs? The Cython developers (in particular Stefan Behnel)

Re: [Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580

On 2018-07-05 14:20, INADA Naoki wrote: like you ignored my advice about creating realistic benchmark for calling 3rd party callable before talking about performance... I didn't really want to ignore that, I just didn't know what to do. As far as I can tell, the official Python benchmark

Re: [Python-Dev] Failing tests (on a Linux distro)

04.07.18 15:05, Nick Coghlan пише: So my guess would be that this is a test suite error where we're not handling the "running in a reproducible build environment with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH already set" case. Should SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH be documented together with PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE?

Re: [Python-Dev] Examples for PEP 572

On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 at 07:42 Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:43:04 -0300 > Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > I think this is a very key point that the "this is bad" crowd is > > overlooking. Even if this syntax turns out to not be that useful, abusing > > the walrus operator can be fixed

[Python-Dev] Summary of Python tracker Issues

ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2018-06-29 - 2018-07-06) Python tracker at https://bugs.python.org/ To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue. Do NOT respond to this message. Issues counts and deltas: open6721 (+16) closed 39090 (+44) total 45811 (+60) Open issues

Re: [Python-Dev] Failing tests (on a Linux distro)

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 11:02 Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > 04.07.18 15:05, Nick Coghlan пише: > > So my guess would be that this is a test suite error where we're not > > handling the "running in a reproducible build environment with > > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH already set" case. > > Should

Re: [Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580

On 07/05/18 13:59, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2018-07-05 13:32, INADA Naoki wrote: Core devs interested in this area is limited resource. I know and unfortunately there is nothing that I can do about that. It would be a pity that PEP 580 (or a variant like PEP 576) is not accepted simply

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 08:52 Chris Barker - NOAA Federal via Python-Dev < python-dev@python.org> wrote: > Are we just having fun here? > > Or might we actually start using a new naming convention for > the-syntax-formerly-known-as-generator-expressions? > If you can create a groundswell of

Re: [Python-Dev] Examples for PEP 572

On 2018-07-04 00:25, Nathaniel Smith wrote: The only cases that seem potentially valuable to me are the ones that are literally the form 'if := ` and 'while := '. (I suspect these are the only cases that I would allow in code that I maintain.) The PEP does briefly discuss the alternative

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

Are we just having fun here? Or might we actually start using a new naming convention for the-syntax-formerly-known-as-generator-expressions? -CHB Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 3, 2018, at 11:54 PM, Greg Ewing wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> - list builder syntax is syntax which returns a

Re: [Python-Dev] On the METH_FASTCALL calling convention

Hi, I designed FASTCALL with the help of Serhiy for keywords. I prepared a long email reply, but I found an opportunity for optimisation on **kwargs and I need time to see how to optimize it. Maybe there is a need for passing **kwargs as a dict at C level, but use FASTCALL for positional

Re: [Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580

On 2018-07-06 23:12, Guido van Rossum wrote: It's your PEP. And you seem to be struggling with something. But I can't tell quite what it is you're struggling with. To be perfectly honest (no hard feelings though!): what I'm struggling with is getting feedback (either positive or negative)

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

On 7/6/2018 11:51 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal via Python-Dev wrote: via phone... Are we just having fun here? I floated the idea as a trial balloon to see what response it got. Or might we actually start using a new naming convention for

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Terry Reedy wrote: > Since Guido, the first respondent, did not immediately shoot the idea > down, I intend to flesh it out and make it more concrete. > Maybe I should have shot it down. The term is entrenched in multiple languages by now (e.g.

Re: [Python-Dev] Removal of install_misc command from distutils

Honestly, I did not realize that 3.7 has been released by the time I wrote my e-mail. I think it will be prudent to get this command back in Python 3.7.1. My work-around was to simply copy the 20-something lines that define install_misc from Python 3.6 to my setup.py file. It was my impression

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/8145 On 07.07.2018 3:33, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: On 07.07.2018 2:58, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: On 07.07.2018 2:31, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Terry Reedy > wrote: Since Guido,

Re: [Python-Dev] Symmetric vs asymmetric symbols (was PEP 572: Do we really need a ":" in ":="?)

On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 01:03:06PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: > >(while "<>" reads "less or greater" which is mathematically not > >equivalent to that: not everything has a defined ordering relation. > > I think this is a silly argument against "<>". While I

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 579 and PEP 580: refactoring C functions and methods

How often "custom method type" are used? I thought Cython use it by default. But when I read code generated by Cython, I can't find it. It uses normal PyMethodDef and tp_methods. I found CyFunction in Cython repository, but I can't find how to use it. Cython document doesn't explain any

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

On 7/6/2018 7:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Terry Reedy > wrote: Since Guido, the first respondent, did not immediately shoot the idea down, I intend to flesh it out and make it more concrete. Maybe I should have shot it down.

[Python-Dev] A "day of silence" on PEP 572?

On 06.07.2018 1:40, Guido van Rossum wrote: Thanks you for writing up a proposal. There have been many proposals made, including 'EXPR as NAME', similar to yours. It even has a small section in the PEP: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/#alternative-spellings. It's really hard to

Re: [Python-Dev] A "day of silence" on PEP 572?

I would gladly welcome a PEP 572-less development mailing-list. Regards Antoine. On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 22:29:47 +0300 Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: > On 06.07.2018 1:40, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > Thanks you for writing up a proposal. There have been many proposals > > made,

Re: [Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:52 AM Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2018-07-05 21:57, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Would it be possible to get outside experts to help? > > I don't understand what you mean: to help with what? Designing the PEP? > Discussing the PEP? Accepting the PEP? Lobbying Python core

Re: [Python-Dev] A "day of silence" on PEP 572?

On July 6, 2018 5:04:05 PM Antoine Pitrou wrote: (or contact the PEP's authors privately). Hoenstly, this feels like a recipe for a disaster... As for the other kinds of threads, as much as I dislike PEP 572, they are useless now. Regards Antoine. On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 23:50:46 +0200

Re: [Python-Dev] A "day of silence" on PEP 572?

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: > On July 6, 2018 5:04:05 PM Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > >> (or contact the PEP's authors >> privately). >> >> > Hoenstly, this feels like a recipe for a disaster... > > ​Many of the people who have strong opinions in this know the PEP authors

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

On 07.07.2018 2:31, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Terry Reedy > wrote: Since Guido, the first respondent, did not immediately shoot the idea down, I intend to flesh it out and make it more concrete. Maybe I should have shot it down.

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

On 07.07.2018 2:58, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: On 07.07.2018 2:31, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Terry Reedy > wrote: Since Guido, the first respondent, did not immediately shoot the idea down, I intend to flesh it out and

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 02:58:23AM +0300, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: > >Also, "generator builder" is not much more expressive than "generator > >expression", I agree with Guido on that comment. The only advantage (such little as it is) is that we can refer to them all using the same

Re: [Python-Dev] Symmetric vs asymmetric symbols (was PEP 572: Do we really need a ":" in ":="?)

[Steven D'Aprano] > I'd just like to point out that > given the existence of float NANs, there's a case to be made for having > separate <> and != operators with != keeping the "not equal" meaning and > the <> operator meaning literally "less than, or greater than". > > py> NAN != 23 > True

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

In response to Guido's reply to my post fleshing out my idea to use 'generator|list|set|dict builder', On 7/6/2018 7:58 PM, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_comprehension#History, the term's known from at least 1977 and comes from such

Re: [Python-Dev] Removal of install_misc command from distutils

Hello, I am not sure of what you propose. Do you want to get the feature back in Python 3.7.1? If yes, should it start to emit a deprection warning? Did you manage to workaround the removal? If yes, maybe we can add more doc to the Porting section of What's New in Python 3.7? Victor Le jeudi 5

Re: [Python-Dev] Tone it down on Twitter?

On 07/06/2018 12:30 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: IOW believing you have been disrespected does not suddenly give you permission to be disrespectful as well. Thanks, Brett, for the reminder. I know we all have rough days, and it's easy to forget to take a break before responding. -- ~Ethan~

Re: [Python-Dev] A "day of silence" on PEP 572?

Last week I proposed to create a mailing list dedicated to discuss only the PEP 572, but nobody reacted to my idea (on python-commiters). Then Guido van Rossum announced his intent to approve it. So I am not sure if a mailing list is still needed if the PEP will be approved soon. Victor Le

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 484

On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 at 22:07 Greg Ewing wrote: > Shawn Chen wrote: > > The PEP 484 is proposing a type hint which can annotate the type of each > > parameters. How ever code written in this format can not be run for > > python3.5 and below. > > You're a bit late. Parameter annotations have been a

Re: [Python-Dev] Naming comprehension syntax [was Re: Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 ...]

On 7/6/2018 11:20 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 08:52 Chris Barker - NOAA Federal via Python-Dev mailto:python-dev@python.org>> wrote: Are we just having fun here? Or might we actually start using a new naming convention for

Re: [Python-Dev] Tone it down on Twitter?

On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 at 11:54 Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 04/07/18 16:48, Stefan Krah wrote: > > > > Apparently I have made it into "club of three who don't care much about > > opinions of others" for the crime of a single +0.5 for PEP-572 without > > participating in the discussion at all (neither

Re: [Python-Dev] A "day of silence" on PEP 572?

I would simply suggest that people who want to improve or fine-tune the PEP post pull requests for that (or contact the PEP's authors privately). As for the other kinds of threads, as much as I dislike PEP 572, they are useless now. Regards Antoine. On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 23:50:46 +0200 Victor

Re: [Python-Dev] On the METH_FASTCALL calling convention

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 7:29 AM Victor Stinner wrote: > > Hi, > > I designed FASTCALL with the help of Serhiy for keywords. I prepared a long > email reply, but I found an opportunity for optimisation on **kwargs and I > need time to see how to optimize it. > > Maybe there is a need for passing

Re: [Python-Dev] Removal of install_misc command from distutils

On Jul 6, 2018, at 19:43, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > Honestly, I did not realize that 3.7 has been released by the time I wrote my > e-mail. So I guess I didn't send out enough notices since January about each of the 5 betas and the release candidate begging everyone to test with the 3.7

Re: [Python-Dev] Removal of install_misc command from distutils

For referencing, the commit was https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/ef158c3ced3fce39e43f54e8d149dc2714e3456e#diff-ef2e84716aa6196aa0ebf0691e608986 and the issue was https://bugs.python.org/issue29218 . On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 at 11:27 Alexander Belopolsky < alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: [Python-Dev] Tone it down on Twitter?

While I agree with Antoine that the wording by Serhiy on Twitter was unnecessary, the tone in responses here are also unnecessary. As has been discussed both here on this mailing list and at the PyCon US language summit, reacting to actual or perceived rudeness with more rudeness is not reasonable

Re: [Python-Dev] A "day of silence" on PEP 572?

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018, 3:41 PM Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > I would gladly welcome a PEP 572-less development mailing-list. > +1. Speaking as a lurker with little interest in the particular topic, PEP 572 has almost driven me to unsubscribe. It's not the massive number of posts that is annoying,

Re: [Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580

Thanks, I will wait until there is a conclusion to the debate. On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:05 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2018-07-06 23:12, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > It's your PEP. And you seem to be struggling with something. But I can't > > tell quite what it is you're struggling with. > >

Re: [Python-Dev] Symmetric vs asymmetric symbols (was PEP 572: Do we really need a ":" in ":="?)

Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: (while "<>" reads "less or greater" which is mathematically not equivalent to that: not everything has a defined ordering relation. I think this is a silly argument against "<>". If we're going to try to assign meaning to individual characters in an operator,