On 2/10/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Next, the schedule. Neal's draft of the schedule has us releasing 2.5 > in October. That feels late -- nearly two years after 2.4 (which was > released on Nov 30, 2004). Do people think it's reasonable to strive > for a more aggressive (by a month) schedule, like this:
October would seem to me to be just about right. I don't see that one month either way should make any big difference, though. > ??? Would anyone want to be even more aggressive (e.g. alpha 1 right > after PyCon???). We could always do three alphas. If I could have a definitive frozen list of features by the first week of April at the latest, that could make it (as a "2.5 preview") into the 2nd edition of "Python in a Nutshell". But since alphas are not feature-frozen, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me, I think. > Other PEPs I'd like comment on: > > PEP 357 (__index__): the patch isn't on SF yet, but otherwise I'm all > for this, and I'd like to accept it ASAP to get it in 2.5. It doesn't > look like it'll cause any problems. It does look great, and by whatever name I support it most heartily. Do, however, notice that it's "yet another specialpurpose adaptation protocol" and that such specific restricted solutions to the general problem, with all of their issues, will just keep piling up forever (and need legacy support ditto) until and unless your temperature wrt 246 (or any variation thereof) should change. > PEP 355 (path module): I still haven't reviewed this, because I'm -0 > on adding what appears to me duplicate functionality. But if there's a I feel definitely -0 towards it too. > PEP 315 - do while. A simple enough syntax proposal, albeit one > introducing a new keyword (which I'm fine with). I kind of like it but > it doesn't strike me as super important -- if we put this off until > Py3k I'd be fine with that too. Opinions? Champions? Another -0 from me. I suggest we shelve it for now and revisit in 3k (maybe PEPs in that state, "not in any 2.* but revisit for 3.0", need a special status value). > PEP 246 - adaptation. I'm still as lukewarm as ever; it needs > interfaces, promises to cause a paradigm shift, and the global map > worries me. Doesn't _need_ interfaces as a concept -- any unique markers as "protocol names" would do, even strings, although obviously the "stronger" the markers the better (classes/types for example would be just perfect). It was written on the assumption of interfaces just because they were being proposed just before it. The key "paradigm shift" is to offer a way to unify what's already being widely done, in haphazard and dispersed manners. And I'll be quite happy to rewrite it in terms of a more nuanced hierarchy of maps (e.g. builtin / per-module / lexically nested, or whatever) if that's what it takes to warm you to it -- I just think it would be over-engineering it, since in practice the global-on-all-modules map would cover by far most usage (both for "blessed" protocols that come with Python, and for the use of "third party" adapting framework A to consume stuff that framework B produces, global is the natural "residence"; other uses are far less important. > PEP 323 - copyable iterators. Seems stalled. Alex, do you care? Sure, I'd like to make this happen, particularly since Raymond appears to have already done the hard part. What would you like to see happening to bless it for 2.5? > PEP 332 - byte vectors. Looks incomplete. Put off until 2.6? Ditto -- I'd like at least SOME of it to be in 2.5. What needs to happen for that? Alex _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
