Hi folks,
With the revised PEP 1 published, the Steering Council members have
been working through the backlog of open PEPs, figuring out which ones
are at a stage of maturity where we think it makes sense to appoint a
BDFL-Delegate to continue moving the PEP through the review process,
and
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 12:45, Inada Naoki wrote:
>
> Hi, all.
>
> I'm thinking about removing PendingDeprecationWarning.
> (previous discussion:
> https://discuss.python.org/t/pendingdeprecationwarning-is-really-useful/1038)
>
> It was added "not be printed by default" version of
On 2019-03-24 16:22, Mark Shannon wrote:
Hi Petr,
Regarding PEPs 576 and 580.
Over the new year, I did a thorough analysis of possible approaches to
possible calling conventions for use in the CPython ecosystems and came
up with a new PEP.
The draft can be found here:
Hi Petr,
Regarding PEPs 576 and 580.
Over the new year, I did a thorough analysis of possible approaches to
possible calling conventions for use in the CPython ecosystems and came
up with a new PEP.
The draft can be found here:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 8:57 PM Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> >
> > It was added "not be printed by default" version of DeprecationWarning.
> > But DeprecationWarning is not printed by default now.
>
> No, this was covered in PEP 565, and PendingDeprecationWarning was
> explicitly kept as a way of
Hi,
I have created the issue https://bugs.python.org/issue36347 because I
wanted to add a missing macro for the PyMemberDef.flags attribute.
In the Modules/*.c files, we can find descriptions with
PyMemberDef where the access flag has the 0 value.
Example:
static PyMemberDef members[] = {
On 3/24/2019 10:01 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/24/2019 7:00 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
Did you have a specific scenario in mind?
I was thinking about IDLE and its tangled web of circular inports, but I
am now convinced that this change will not affect it. Indeed,
idlelib/pyshell.py
On 3/24/2019 7:00 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 24Mar2019 17:02, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/24/2019 8:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
* PEP 499: Binding "-m" executed modules under their module name as
well as `__main__`
My brief response: +1 unless there is a good reason not.
There turn out to
And use an enumeration for the constants.
For example:
#include
#include
enum {
PY_READWRITE = 0,
PY_READONLY = 1,
READONLY __attribute((deprecated("use PY_READONLY"))) = PY_READONLY,
READWRITE __attribute((deprecated("use PY_READWRITE"))) = PY_READWRITE,
};
Le 24/03/19 à
Le dim. 24 mars 2019 à 20:56, Stéphane Wirtel a écrit :
> So my question is, can we use/add __attribute__(deprecated) in our
> "development" kit?
There is already Py_DEPRECATED(VERSION_UNUSED) macro which uses
__attribute__((__deprecated__)) on GCC >= 3.1.
You can find the doc of a few macros
Thanks Victor, I have updated my PR with the Py_DEPRECATED macro.
Le 24/03/19 à 23:07, Victor Stinner a écrit :
> Le dim. 24 mars 2019 à 20:56, Stéphane Wirtel a écrit :
>> So my question is, can we use/add __attribute__(deprecated) in our
>> "development" kit?
>
> There is already
On 24Mar2019 17:02, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/24/2019 8:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
* PEP 499: Binding "-m" executed modules under their module name as
well as `__main__`
My brief response: +1 unless there is a good reason not.
There turn out to be some subtle side effects. The test suite
Now that the discussion on PEP 576/580 has been opened again, let me
write something about the complexity of function calls (*), which is
probably the most frequently given reason against PEP 580.
An important fact is the following: *the status-quo is complex*.
Over time, many performance
On 2019-03-24 16:22, Mark Shannon wrote:
The draft can be found here:
https://github.com/markshannon/peps/blob/new-calling-convention/pep-.rst
I think that this is basically a better version of PEP 576. The idea is
the same as PEP 576, but the details are better. Since it's not
On 3/24/2019 8:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
We'll be announcing those appointments as we go, so I'm happy to
report that I will be handling the BDFL-Delegate responsibilities for
the following PEPs:
Where do we discuss these?
If a delegate has a provisional view, it might help focus discussion
15 matches
Mail list logo
