[Python-Dev] class Foo(object) vs class Foo: should be clearly explained in python 2 and 3 doc
Hi. Referring to my discussion on [1] and then on #python this afternoon. A little background would help people to understand where this was coming from. 1. I write Python 2 code and have done zero Python-3 specific code. 2. I have always been using class Foo(object) so I do not know the new style is no longer required in Python 3. I feel "stupid" and "wrong" by thinking (object) is still a convention in Python 3. 3. Many Python 2 tutorials do not use object as the base class whether for historical reason, or lack of information/education, and can cause confusing to newcomers searching for answers when they consult the official documentation. While Python 3 code no longer requires object be the base class for the new-style class definition, I believe (object) is still required if one has to write a 2-3 compatible code. But this was not explained or warned anywhere in Python 2 and Python 3 code, AFAIK. (if I am wrong, please correct me) I propose the followings: * It is desirable to state boldly to users that (object) is no longer needed in Python-3 **only** code and warn users to revert to (object) style if the code needs to be 2 and 3 compatible. * In addition, Python 2 doc [2] should be fixed by introducing the new-style classes. This problem was noted a long long time ago according to [4]. * I would like to see warnings from suggested action item 1 on [2] and [3], for python 2 and 3 documentations. Possible objections(s): * We are pushing toward Python 3, some years later we don't need to maintain both Python 2 and 3 code. And many people, especially the newcomers will probably have no need to maintain Python 2 and 3 compatible codes. My answer to that is we need to be careful with marketing. First, it is a little embarrassing to assume and to find out the assumption is not entirely accurate. Secondly, Python 2 will not go away any time soon and most tutorials available on the Internet today are still written for Python 2. Furthermore, this CAN be a "gotcha" for new developers knowing only Python 3 writing Python 2 & 3 compatible code. * Books can do a better job I haven't actually reviewed/read any Python 3 books knowing most of my code should work without bothering Python 3-2 incompatibility yet. So I don't have an accurate answer, but a very very quick glance over a popular Python 3 book (I am not sure if naming it out is ethical or not so I am going to grey it out here) the book just writes class Foo: and doesn't note the different between 2 and 3 with classes. It is not wrong since the book is about programming in Python 3, NOT writing 2 and 3, but this is where the communication breaks. Docs and books don't give all the answers needed. P.S. Sorry if I should've have asked on #python-dev first or made a ticket but I've decided to send to mailing list before making a bug ticket. First time! Thanks. Best, Yeuk Hon [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8154471 [2]: https://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/classes.html https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html [3]: https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html [4]: https://www.python.org/doc/newstyle/ ___ 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] 2.x vs 3.x survey results
On 1/4/14 10:42 PM, Ben Finney wrote: Luca Sbardella writes: you are my heroes but this survey is quite useless, can you include more people? The survey cohort was self-selected from those who read the forums where it was posted. I wasn't aware of it so many thousands of python users. That statement confuses me. Were you aware of it, or not? How did you become aware of it? And after that, you are well aware that Python 3 or 2 is becoming a liability, just stick with one, anyone (3) at this point. The policy of the Python core developers is quite clear, and has been for many years: Python 2 is a dead end, and Python 2.7 (released 2010-07-03, 3½ years ago) is the last Python 2. Python 2.7 is the last of the Python 2 line, there will never be new Python 2 features http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-0404/>, everyone should migrate to Python 3. That is already the Python core developers's published policy. So, to whom are you speaking here on the Python core developers' forum? I don't want to go and learn a new language, please. Great! If you already know Python, then there is very little (certainly not “a new language”) different to move from Python 2.7 to Python 3. Enjoy! I think it helps Luca and many others (including myself) if there is a reference of the difference between 2.7 and Python 3.3+. There are PEPs and books, but is there any such long list of references? If not, should we start investing in one? I know the basic one such as xrange and range, items vs iteritems, izip vs zip that sort of uniform syntax/library inclusion difference. If there is such reference available? Yeuk Hon ___ 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] Enable Hostname and Certificate Chain Validation
On 1/22/14 8:16 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Which is exactly the way most non-web-specialists working inside the comfort of corporate and academic firewalls will react to a change that breaks their access to internal applications, where self-signed certs and improperly configured internal CAs are endemic (of course, that's assuming they're using HTTPS at all, which I admit is an optimistic assumption). The number of people who are using 3.4+ in these environments is probably very very low to be honest. I don't have a number to prove, but in that environment people are more likely to still be using 2.6+. I think a deprecation in 2.7+ would be nice, but forward we should just enable it by default. When requests changed property calls (e.g. requests.json) to callable instead of an attribute(from requests.json to requests.json()), I was shocked. I had to figure out by Googling it. I found out from github issue I think a hard fail is somehow necessary. Also, a lot of people overlook at deprecation warnings. They either don't care or don't see it. I see a lot of deprecation warnings in the older applications I write, but I can careless until it breaks. So as we moving forward, we can break it. For those stuck behind, deprecation is the right approach. John ___ 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
