Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> 4.0 is too far. Why not disallow them in 3.10?
What's the current plan? I thought it's going to be 3.8, 3.9, 4.0. Is there a
PEP detailing this?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.pytho
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> Closing this issue as I, personally, don't see this happening and there's no
> point in keeping it open.
Actually, Andrew and I changed our opinion on this, so I'm re-opening the issue.
After visiting three conferences this summer a
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
components: asyncio
nosy: asvetlov, yselivanov
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Raise DeprecationWarning for "with (await lock):"
versions: Python 3.8
___
Python tracker
<https://bu
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
Never mind, we do this already. The question is then should we just remove the
support for this syntax entirely in 3.8, or we should wait until 3.9?
--
title: Raise DeprecationWarning for "with (await lock):" -> Remove support for
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Can you reproduce this with uvloop?
Andrew: I think we need to "lock" sockets from closing in sock_recv and friends
the same way we do it in uvloop.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.o
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
See also https://bugs.python.org/issue34795
--
nosy: +asvetlov
versions: +Python 3.8 -Python 3.5, Python 3.6
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue30
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
NP, Eric, take your time. I agree that the PR isn't simple and needs a very
careful review.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 6ea29c5e90dde6c240bd8e0815614b52ac307ea1 by Yury Selivanov
(Victor Stinner) in branch 'master':
bpo-34687: Make asynico use ProactorEventLoop by default (GH-9538)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/6ea29c5e90dde6c240bd8e0815614b
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 996859a90df51f84eab47351702cb59c6db4428a by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-34790: [docs] Passing coroutines to asyncio.wait() can be confusing.
(GH-9543)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/996859a90df51f84eab47351702cb5
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Actually, since Andrew also agrees that we need to deprecate passing coroutines
to wait(), I'll keep this issue open until we add an actual DeprecationWarning
in 3.8.
--
resolution: fixed ->
stage: resolved ->
status: clo
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
PendingDeprecationWarning
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34790>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34824>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Right, I'll make a PR.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34762>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +9007
stage: resolved -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34762>
___
___
Python-
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 994269ccee5574f03cda6b018399347fc52bf330 by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-34762: Update PyContext* to PyObject* in asyncio and decimal (GH-9609)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/994269ccee5574f03cda6b01839934
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +9008
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34762>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 24cb7de15d3a5979425b281ab4f600f7c2b401f2 by Yury Selivanov in
branch '3.7':
[3.7] bpo-34762: Update PyContext* refs to PyObject* in asyncio and decimal
(GH-9610)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/24cb7de15d3a5979425b281ab4f600
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thank you Serhiy, for re-opening this! I've pushed fixes to 3.7 and master
branches.
--
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +9009
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34802>
___
___
Py
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I'll make a simple fix for the asyncio.coroutine decorator docs.
> I would suggest below for #coroutines :
>> Coroutines declared with async/await syntax is the preferred way of writing
>> asyncio applications but asyncio also suppo
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 59ee5b12938efbf534f2a19300a847bf6b23a77d by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-34802: Fix asyncio.iscoroutine() docs (GH-9611)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/59ee5b12938efbf534f2a19300a847
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +9023
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34802>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I like this, great job!
Couple of thoughts on how we should organize this:
* I think we should stick to your structure and push things to docs.python.org
as soon as every next section is somewhat ready.
* Every big section should probably have its own
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Wow. Thanks so much for figuring this out, I know how hard it is to debug
issues like this.
Now I see it clearly: _asyncgen_finalizer_hook should be using
loop.call_soon_threadsafe. Interestingly, I used _write_to_self there, so I
knew about the issue
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Rereading your first message:
> When testing my happy eyeballs library, I occasionally run into issues with
> async generators seemingly not finalizing. After setting
> loop.set_debug(True), I have been seeing log entries like these:
The bug we a
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
The PR needs a very careful review, but in general I'm OK with the idea. I'm
also curious why do you want to fix wrap_future -- how are you using it?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.o
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
So we're deprecating passing non-ThreadPoolExecutor instances to
loop.set_default_executor. In 3.9 that will trigger an error.
For this issue we have basically the next few options:
(1) Do nothing;
(2) Fix "run_in_executor" to start copying
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
One problem with (3) is what will happen if someone uses "retain_context=True"
and a ProcessPoolExecutor. It has to fail in a graceful and obvious way.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.o
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> On python-committers, it has been said that 3.10 will follow Python 3.9, no?
Victor, you're looking at an outdated comment on this issue. This is what's in
the master branch:
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/d4c76d960b8b286b75c93378041
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
pull_requests: +9054
stage: needs patch -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34728>
___
___
Python-
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 9012a0fb4c4ec1afef9efb9fdb0964554ea17983 by Yury Selivanov in
branch 'master':
bpo-34728: Fix asyncio tests to run under "-Werror" (GH-9661)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/9012a0fb4c4ec1afef9e
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
[victor]
> Why does it not make sense to pass the loop to sleep? "it makes no sense
> anymore" something changes?
[andrew]
`loop` argument passed to sleep should be always the same as returned from
`get_running_loop()`.
What Andrew said
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
Vladimir Matveev has discovered that C and Python implementation of
asyncio.Task diverge:
* asynciomodule.c:
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/9012a0fb4c4ec1afef9efb9fdb0964554ea17983/Modules/_asynciomodule.c#L2716
* tasks.py:
https://github.com
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Elvis, please take a look at this.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34872>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Ned, will we have 3.7.1rc2? If so, would it be possible to include the fix for
this one?
--
nosy: +ned.deily
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
The cancellation is now discussed in this
section:https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio-task.html (search for
"cancel") and in particular in the Task subsection.
Is there any important detail that was covered in the old documentation and is
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 0c797a6aca1c293e530e18c5e9fa02c670a9a4ed by Yury Selivanov (Elvis
Pranskevichus) in branch 'master':
bpo-34872: Fix self-cancellation in C implementation of asyncio.Task (GH-9679)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
[Andrew]
> I vote on not changing `run_in_executor` behavior if we cannot make it work
> with `ProcessPoolExecutor`.
> If a new API will solve the problem -- that's fine.
Until it landed the explicit context propagation is the satisfactory s
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> I too have bashed my head for many hours over the years trying to get Tkinter
> to work on Mac, but a lot of work has gone into this recently and the newer
> (release) Python's have bundled Tk 8.6:
> https://www.python.org/download/mac/tcl
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> It is a new feature for Python 3.8 anyway, no need to rush
Yep, I agree. Let's see if we end up having a new nice high-level API in 3.8;
if not we go for (3).
--
resolution: -> postponed
status: open -> pending
type:
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
status: pending -> open
versions: -Python 3.7
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34014>
___
___
Python-bugs-lis
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Ned, elevating this to "release blocker", see https://bugs.python.org/msg326928
Feel free to close this issue.
--
priority: normal -> release blocker
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.pytho
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> What's your assessment of the risk of option 2?
Let's not rush it in without testing, for sure.
Having 3.7.1rc2 would be great, but really up to you.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.pytho
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: -yselivanov
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34822>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Having properly working coverage tooling is simply invaluable to pretty much
every serious Python user. I support Ned's idea of adding an option to disable
peephole optimizer (and similar other optimization passes). Why is this even
de
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> I would suggest -X noopt and use "noopt" in .pyc filenames. That's what I
> proposed in my PEP 511.
Sounds good to me.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://b
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
While I agree with you that we need a flag to disable optimizations, this
particular change isn't related to AST or peephole optimizers.
See the bpo-17611 for more details (or
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/520b7ae27e39d1c77ea74ccd1b184d7cb43
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
It's more complicated than that: there's no more SETUP_LOOP opcode anymore.
The ceval and compiler parts responsible for evaluating and compiling loops
were rewritten. FWIW the goal was more about simplifying the needlessly
complicated implemen
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> I assume there is some place that notices that the while condition is a
> constant, and therefore doesn't need to be explicitly evaluated?
Ah, I see what you're asking about. I'll need
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +9080
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue2506>
___
___
Py
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> I assume there is some place that notices that the while condition is a
> constant, and therefore doesn't need to be explicitly evaluated?
To answer your question: yes, and it's unrelated to both peephole optimizer and
to the above
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I think the fact that `inspect.isfunction` recognizes partials is a very strong
argument to enable inspect.iscoroutinefunction to do so as well.
This is a backwards incompatible change though, strictly speaking
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Feel free to work on the PR. If we want to push this to 3.8 we should do that
now and have enough time for it to be tested.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> Please note that postponed annotations only reveal a problem that we already
> had if anybody used a string forward reference:
Yeah, makes sense. It's cool that the PR fixes string forward referenc
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 70a083bc46aea84e3b3ffca2c10c295917a98fec by Yury Selivanov (Miss
Islington (bot)) in branch '3.6':
bpo-34871: inspect: Don't pollute sys.modules (GH-9696) (GH-9702)
https://github.com/python
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 476c294f260ebe1b44157a168c3dfa4a43724ce3 by Yury Selivanov (Miss
Islington (bot)) in branch '3.7':
bpo-34871: inspect: Don't pollute sys.modules (GH-9696) (#9701)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/476c294f260ebe1b44157a168
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thank you Inada-san for taking care of this.
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> Yury, based on the file paths, you appear to be running a MacPorts python3.7.
> Like many other third-party distributors (but unlike the python.org
> installers), MacPorts separates Tkinter support into a separately-installable
> com
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
yes
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34795>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Closing it now, Ned, thanks! I assume it will make it into 3.7.1rc2, right?
--
priority: release blocker -> normal
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Py
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset c880ffe7d2ce2fedb1831918c8a36e3623e0fb76 by Yury Selivanov
(twisteroid ambassador) in branch 'master':
bpo-34769: Thread safety for _asyncgen_finalizer_hook(). (GH-9716)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset a14dda5df62369d01db6c7519e73aae71d0e7cfe by Yury Selivanov
(twisteroid ambassador) in branch '3.6':
[3.6] bpo-34769: Thread safety for _asyncgen_finalizer_hook(). (GH-9716)
(GH-9792)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
versions: +Python 3.6
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I'll close this issue now. If you find another bug in how asyncio handles
async generators please open a new one. Thanks!
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue26467>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
So we have BufferedProtocol in 3.7; now we need to re-implement asyncio streams
on top of it. But even after doing that I'm not that sure we want to expose
the low-level buffer.
--
stage: needs
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
>> we could consider risking cherry-picking it to 3.7.1 final. Sound OK?
> Let's wait for Yuri opinion.
I agree it's a pretty serious bug; basically a time bomb that can crash a
perfectly fine asyncio application. The PR itself seems to
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> AFAICT the stdlib's implementation of call_soon_threadsafe is already
> reentrant-safe
What would make it not reentrant-safe? We'll need to document that for the
benefit of asyncio and third-p
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
One thing: I'm -1 on adding starttls to current stream api; let's add it only
to the new one (same for sendfile)
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.o
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
asvetlov: need to handle this usecase with the new API; -1 on exposing
FlowControlMixin though.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New changeset 43a5bd7b458f0ad2d62b00b033d025689d48d591 by Yury Selivanov
(Braden Groom) in branch 'master':
bpo-23554: Change echo server example class name from EchoServerClientProtocol
to EchoServerProtocol (GH-9859)
https://github.com/pyth
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Change by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: +njs
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35269>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Mark, did you add the test that your patch initially was failing with?
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116605.html
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue13
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
> The patch causes crashes.
Yes, that's known.
First, we need to check, that we can only write tuple of cell objects or None
in __closure__ (that's easy to add). Secondly, perhaps, we can check
__closure__ correctness each time we start eval
Changes by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: +Yury.Selivanov
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14660>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Changes by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: +Yury.Selivanov
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue12029>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
This issue will track implementation of PEP 362 functionality.
--
components: Library (Lib)
files: pep362.1.patch
hgrepos: 131
keywords: patch
messages: 162377
nosy: Yury.Selivanov, brett.cannon, larry
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Well, 'Signature' class is unlikely to be used very frequently. So I think
it's fine.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.pyt
Changes by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: +Yury.Selivanov
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14626>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Attaching a patch that implements the latest version of the PEP.
Quick summary:
1. Ditched Signature.name & Signature.qualname
2. Added Signature.__eq__ and __ne__
3. signature() supports classes, metaclasses, decorated stuff, partials,
methods, classmet
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Attaching the new version of the patch.
Summary:
1. 'is_*' family was replaced with 'Parameter.kind'
2. 'signature()' function was updated to check for '__wrapped__'
attribute in all callables
3. 'is_imple
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New version (pep363.4.patch)
Summary:
1. Removed 'Signature.implemented'
2. No more patching built-ins - no issues with shared interpreters
3. Removed 'Signature.format()'. If needed we'll reintroduce it in 3.4
(although we still ha
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Eric,
I personally prefer simple 'signature()' more than 'get_signature()'. But I'll
ask this question on python-dev on the next PEP update.
--
___
Python tracker
<http:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New patch (pep362.5.patch)
Fixed a bug in BoundArguments.args & BoundArguments.kwargs
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file26052/pep362.5.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/iss
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New patch (pep362.6.patch)
Fixed a bug in BoundArguments.args when positional arguments were partially
mapped by functools.partial
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file26053/pep362.6.patch
___
Python tracker
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New patch - pep362.6.patch
Ezio,
I've eliminated almost all '\'.
Test coverage is now almost 100%.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file26055/pep362.6.patch
___
Python tracker
<http
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New patch - pep362.7.patch
Summary:
1. Signature & Parameter objects are now immutable
2. Signature.replace() and Parameter.replace()
3. Signature has a new default constructor, which
accepts parameters list and a return_annotation; and
a new 'from
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New patch - pep362.8.patch
One big change (Guido's request) - No more AttributeErrors on missing
Parameter.default of Signature.return_annotation. They now will be set to
Parameter.empty & Signature.empty correspondingly.
--
Added f
Changes by Yury Selivanov :
--
resolution: -> fixed
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue15008>
___
___
Python-bugs-list
New submission from Yury Selivanov :
With this patch 'contextlib.ExitStack.callback(callback, *args, **kwds)' will
validate that the passed callback actually accept the passed '*args' and
'**kwds'.
P.S. If this patch comes through - I'll create two mor
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Éric, yes, please close it.
--
nosy: +Yury.Selivanov
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue8916>
___
___
Python-bug
Changes by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue15185>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
(my previous message edit: no support for 'atexit' - it's implemented in C)
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.pyt
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Larry, Brett,
I compiled the documentation from the PEP (attached as inspect.pep362.1.patch).
Please take a look and feel free to add/edit.
--
keywords: +patch
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file26410/inspect.pep362.1.patch
Changes by Yury Selivanov :
--
nosy: -Yury.Selivanov
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue15151>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
The new patch version (inspect.pep362.2.patch) includes more examples and
includes recommendations to use the Signature Object instead of
'inspect.getfullargsspec'. Please review.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file26419/inspec
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New patch version - inspect.pep362.3.patch
I decided to put the new doc section above the "Classes and functions". The new
section is now called "Introspecting callables with Signature Object". Aside
from that everything is the same
1401 - 1500 of 3098 matches
Mail list logo
