Re: [Python-Dev] Appending a link back to bugs.python.org in GitHub PRs

[Nick Coghlan]

On 26 July 2017 at 02:21, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 at 07:30 Ben Hoyt  wrote:
>>
>> With the linking back and forth, I'm curious why there wasn't a switch to
>> use GitHub's issue tracker when we switched to GitHub. I'm sure there was
>> previous discussion about this and good reasons not to, but couldn't find
>> those quickly (PEP 512, Google search, etc) -- can someone point me in the
>> right direction? -Ben
>
> Basically there was push-back on the idea and I only had enough time and
> patience for one major infrastructure change that was somewhat controversial
> and not for two.

And unlike repository management and review management, we don't have
any major process bottlenecks specifically related to bugs.python.org,
and Github's issue tracker is merely "good enough if you don't
otherwise have an issue tracker" rather than being exemplary the way
their repository and review management are.

So given the volume of incoming references to the current issue URLs,
the potential for increased lock-in to a proprietary service provider
with non-public finances, the difficulty of actually doing such a
migration, and the questionable practical benefits, "Integrate Roundup
with GitHub" was the default winner over doing a second data
migration.

The idea of moving tracker development *itself* to GitHub (and hence
getting to dispense with the metatracker in favour of a GitHub repo
with issues enabled) *has* been raised, and may be worth considering,
but that would be up to the folks that actually do the bulk of the
work on tracker maintenance (Berker, Ezio, Maciej, etc)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncogh...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Koos Zevenhoven]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano 
wrote:

> Hello Kiuhnm, and welcome.
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:35:03PM +0200, Kiuhnm via Python-Dev wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think that the expression "for...else" or "while...else" is completely
> > counter-intuitive.
>
>
> You may be right -- this has been discussed many, many times before. In
> my personal opinion, the best (and only accurate!) phrase would have
> been:
>
> for item in sequence:
> # block
> then:
> # block
>
>
​IMO,

for item in sequence:
# block
nobreak:   # or perhaps `if not break:`
# block

would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all).


​[...]


> ​
>
> > Wouldn't it be possible to make it clearer? Maybe
> > something like
>
> At this point, no, it is not practical to change the syntax used. Maybe
> when Python 3.0 was first introduced, but that ship has long sailed. It
> is very, very unlikely that the syntax for this will ever change, but if
> it does, it probably won't be until something in the distant future like
> Python 5.
>

​I don't have a strong opinion on this particular case, but if something
like this is changed in Python 5, I think the decision should be made much
earlier (now?) so that the old else syntax could be discouraged (and new
syntax potentially already introduced). The same thing would apply to many
other "possibly in Python 5" changes, where there is no reason to expect
that the situation is somehow different years later.

-- Koos


>
> But not Python 4: Guido has already ruled that Python 4 will not include
> major backwards-incompatible changes. Going from 3 to 4 will not be as
> disruptive as going from 2 to 3.
>
>
​[...]​


-- 
+ Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[MRAB]

On 2017-07-26 23:55, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano >wrote:


Hello Kiuhnm, and welcome.

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:35:03PM +0200, Kiuhnm via Python-Dev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think that the expression "for...else" or "while...else" is completely
> counter-intuitive.


You may be right -- this has been discussed many, many times before. In
my personal opinion, the best (and only accurate!) phrase would have
been:

for item in sequence:
 # block
then:
 # block


​IMO,

for item in sequence:
 # block
nobreak:   # or perhaps `if not break:`
 # block

would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all).


[snip]

You couldn't have "if not break:" because that would look like the start 
of an 'if' statement.


"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Koos Zevenhoven]

On Jul 27, 2017 02:38, "MRAB"  wrote:

On 2017-07-26 23:55, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:

>
> ​IMO,
>
> for item in sequence:
>  # block
> nobreak:   # or perhaps `if not break:`
>  # block
>
> would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all).
>

You couldn't have "if not break:" because that would look like the start of
an 'if' statement.


Do you mean as an implementation issue or for human readability?

"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Sure :)

-- Koos (mobile)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[MRAB]

On 2017-07-27 01:07, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
On Jul 27, 2017 02:38, "MRAB" > wrote:


On 2017-07-26 23:55, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:


​IMO,

for item in sequence:
 # block
nobreak:   # or perhaps `if not break:`
 # block

would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all).


You couldn't have "if not break:" because that would look like the
start of an 'if' statement.


Do you mean as an implementation issue or for human readability?

I suppose you _could_ use "if not break:", but as 'if' normally 
indicates the start of an 'if' statement, you would get complaints about 
it! :-)


Maybe it would be clearer if it was "elif not break:". :-)


"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Sure :)



___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Terry Reedy]

This discussion belongs on python-list (where is it mostly a repeat).

--
Terry Jan Reedy

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Mike Miller]

On 2017-07-26 16:36, MRAB wrote:

"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Whenever I've used the for-else, I've put a # no-break right next to it, to 
remind myself as much as anyone else.


for...: not break: is the best alternative I've yet seen, congrats.  Perhaps in 
Python 5 it can be enabled, with for-else: used instead for empty iterables, as 
that's what I expected the first few dozen times.


-Mike
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com