Re: [Python-Dev] Building Py3K branch docs with Sphinx
Tim Golden wrote: > Tim Golden wrote: >> Can I ask which flavour of Sphinx is being used to build the py3k docs? >> I've taken the naive approach of simply pulling the sources from >> branches/py3k and then calling make checkout to fetch the appropriate >> sources, but these are from http://svn.python.org/projects and are >> the same for 2.x and 3.x (and don't work under 3.x). > > > ... or I could just use an existing Python 2.x installation to build > the 3.x docs. Obviously. (slaps forehead) I asked about this on the Sphinx list a while back. I didn't get any response at the time, but checking now I see that a week later someone (the author I assume) commented - http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev/browse_thread/thread/9a0286f5deeb2912/778a02c397295add So it seems that there is no public solution until release 0.6, and that you cannot be able to run doctests when running with a "different" Python version (my code should work with 3.0 and 2.6, so tests might work; for some reason I can no longer remember I disabled that). Anyway, I generate docs for 3.x code using 2.x and it does work (without doctests). Andrew ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Core projects: 3to2
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Terry Reedy udel.edu> writes:
>>> Some of the people who need to support both late 2.x and 3.x would
>>> prefer to write 3.x code and backport. The OP of a current python-list
>>> thread asked whether there was any way to write something like
>>>
>>> @alias('__nonzero__')
>>> def __bool__(self): return True
>>
>> How about simply:
>> __nonzero__ = __bool__
>>
>>> I believe my own 3.0 code will mainly also need
>>> print() to print statement
>>
>> If this is only about supporting "late 2.x" (i.e., 2.6 and upwards), you
>> can
>> already write:
>
> People often do not specify. I suspect some are thinking back to 2.5,
> but that will change in the future.
i am the author of the original post quoted above. i wrote a parser
library (lepl) using 3.0. backporting to 2.6 was fairly easy, but it
still does not run with 2.5.
if i remember correctly it appeared that i was going to need separate
source files because of significant differences in syntax (print,
exceptions) as well as missing functionality (metaclasses, string
formatting).
andrew
___
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
Re: [Python-Dev] Unladen-Swallow: A faster python
Mark Hammond wrote: > On 28/03/2009 9:50 PM, andrew cooke wrote: >> Tim Roberts wrote: >>> [...] IronPython has certainly shown that Python can be successfully >>> implemented in a JIT compiled VM in a performant way, but it has issues >>> running C extension modules. >>> >>> I'll be curious to see where this project goes. >> >> given the comments on python-dev i wonder if this is the first >> indication >> that python is going to split into separate implementations for windows >> and unix (via .net and llvm, respectively)? > > What comments are they? There is no indication that unladen-swallow is > fundamentally broken for Windows, just temporarily broken due to the > lack of windows developers/contributors... the comments you are referring to - that windows is not a priority, that they currently have no testing on windows machines, etc. i quote, for example: "None of the three of us have Windows machines, nor do we particularly want to acquire them :), and Windows support isn't going to be a big priority." > Saying-no-to-fud ly, which part of "i wonder" don't you understand? i'm not saying it is true, i'm just discussing the possibility. i am getting a little tired of people here acting so defensively... i'm discussing a programming language, not the size of your dick. andrew ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Unladen-Swallow: A faster python
Mark Hammond wrote: [...I wrote] > > i'm discussing a programming language, not the size of your dick. > > Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions :) Is there something you feel > the need to get off your chest? i'm not sure how this has ended up in python-dev; i was responding in python and if you read that group my comments may have made a little more sense (there were some hysterics in a separate thread accusing me of saying python was "dying" because i was concerned about how the discussion groups had evolved). anyway, that had nothing to do with you and i am sorry i responded like that. andrew ___ 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
