Re: [Python-ideas] PEP 525: Asynchronous Generators

> On 11 Aug 2016, at 13:00, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Twisted callbacks are still red functions - you call them via the event loop > rather than directly, and only event loop aware functions know how to make > that request of the event loop. > > async/await just makes the

Re: [Python-ideas] PEP 525: Asynchronous Generators

> On 11 Aug 2016, at 04:46, Chris Angelico wrote: > > Though tongue-in-cheek, this talk shows (along the way) some of the > costs of preemption, and thus some of the possibilities you'd open up > if you could go back to cooperation. While I don't think the time is > right for

[Python-ideas] Unified TLS API for Python

. Please let me know what you think. Cory [1]: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-January/029970.html [2]: https://github.com/Lukasa/peps/pull/1 — PEP: XXX Title: TLS Abstract Base Classes Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ Author: Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk>

Re: [Python-ideas] Unified TLS API for Python

> On 2 Feb 2017, at 11:03, Robert Collins wrote: > > Nice. What's needed to move this forward? In the short term, for the PEP, nothing more than review and sanity checking. Antione has kindly provided some detailed review on GitHub (thanks Antoine!), and the more

Re: [Python-ideas] Unified TLS API for Python

> On 2 Feb 2017, at 11:17, Paul Moore wrote: > > One thing that wasn't clear to me was the backward compatibility > implications. Will the existing ssl module and its API be retained, or > will it be modified/deprecated? Will Windows/OSX distributions of > Python ultimately

Re: [Python-ideas] Unified TLS API for Python

> On 3 Feb 2017, at 18:30, Steve Dower <steve.do...@python.org> wrote: > > On 02Feb2017 0601, Cory Benfield wrote: >> >> 4. Eventually, integrating the two backends above into the standard >> library so that it becomes possible to reduce the reliance on Op

Re: [Python-ideas] "Immutable Builder" Pattern and Operator

> On 22 Jan 2017, at 22:45, Soni L. wrote: > > This pattern is present in the cryptography module already with things like their x509.CertificateBuilder: https://cryptography.io/en/latest/x509/reference/#cryptography.x509.CertificateBuilder

Re: [Python-ideas] Efficient debug logging

> On 14 Feb 2017, at 15:51, Barry Scott wrote: > And have the evaluation of the argument skipped unless its dbg_log is enabled. > > I cannot see how to do this with python as it stands. > > Something would have to be added to allow python to short circuit the >

Re: [Python-ideas] Proposal for default character representation

> On 14 Oct 2016, at 08:53, Mikhail V wrote: > > What keeps people from using same characters? > I will tell you what - it is local law. If you go to school you *have* to > write in what is prescribed by big daddy. If youre in europe or America, you > are > more lucky.

Re: [Python-ideas] Support for OAuth2/OIDC in the standard distribution ?

> On 17 Nov 2016, at 11:35, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17 November 2016 at 10:58, Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: >> Paul, you mentioned that discovery on PyPI is a problem: I don’t contest >> that at all. But I don’t think the s

Re: [Python-ideas] Support for OAuth2/OIDC in the standard distribution ?

> On 17 Nov 2016, at 13:42, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17 November 2016 at 12:27, Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: >> This isn’t me disagreeing with you, just me pointing out that the fuzziness >> around this makes me nervous. It ha

Re: [Python-ideas] Support for OAuth2/OIDC in the standard distribution ?

> On 16 Nov 2016, at 13:30, Roland Hedberg <rol...@catalogix.se> wrote: > > >> On 16 Nov 2016, at 14:50, Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: >> >> I think the core question you need to answer for this proposal is: why is >> “pip install oic” n

Re: [Python-ideas] Support for OAuth2/OIDC in the standard distribution ?

> On 16 Nov 2016, at 11:51, Roland Hedberg wrote: > > The bottom line is of course that it would benefit the community to have a > high quality OAuth2/OIDC implementation within easy reach. I think the core question you need to answer for this proposal is: why is “pip

Re: [Python-ideas] PEP: Distributing a Subset of the Standard Library

> On 29 Nov 2016, at 02:48, Chris Angelico wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> What if I have two files? >> >> # a.py >> try: >>import spam >> except ImportError: >>import ham as spam >> >> # b.py >> try: >>

Re: [Python-ideas] Third party module in standard library

> On 22 Mar 2017, at 12:51, George Fischhof wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > I would like to ask You: > What is the process to propose a module to be part of the standard library? > > I would like to propose the following modules: > requests > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/requests

Re: [Python-ideas] Python 4: Concatenation

> On 30 Jun 2017, at 03:14, Soni L. wrote: > > This isn't a *major* backwards incompatibility. Unlike with unicode/strings, > a dumb static analysis program can trivially replace + with the concatenation > operator, whatever that may be. Technically, nothing forces us to