On 9/15/2010 8:55 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
To try (again) to make things concrete here:
I didn't work to get Django running on Python 3.0 because it was just too slow.
Soon after 3.0 was released, it was discovered and acknowledged thay the
new I/O has some speed problems. (Why not disco
This list is for the development of Python, not questions about its
use. You should ask python-list. None the less, it's because input()
changed between Python 2 and 3. Look at the docs for both.
2010/9/15 João Vitor :
> I made a program that, according to my teacher, is correct but is not
> runni
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use in
> web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting porting target for
> web projects/libraries and frameworks.
To try (again) to make things concrete her
I made a program that, according to my teacher, is correct but is not running
properly.The program is really simple:
import mathx = input ("Coloque o valor do primeiro cateto:")y = input ("Coloque
o valor do segundo cateto:")z = x**2w = y**2soma = z + wh = math.sqrt
(soma)print = "O valor da hi
On 9/15/2010 4:44 PM, python-dev-requ...@python.org wrote:
``SERVER_PORT`` must be a bytes instance (not an integer).
What's that supposed to mean? What goes in the "bytes
instance"? A character string in some format? A long binary
number? If the latter, with which byte ordering? What
p
At 09:22 AM 9/16/2010 +1000, James Mills wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Comments and competing specs would be useful.
Can I post comments here ? :)
Please, let's put any spec-detail commentary on the Web-SIG instead
(commenting here on process issues related
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use in
> web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting porting target for
> web projects/libraries and frameworks.
Python 3 is already quite well done and ve
On Sep 15, 2010, at 6:44 PM, James Mills wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> I don't see what we gain by holding up the 3.2 release. Some writing a
>> Web application will need third-party modules anyway, so downloading
>> wsgi3ref shouldn't be too painful.
>
>
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Comments and competing specs would be useful.
Can I post comments here ? :)
I have one initial comment (at first glance).
I'm not sure I quite like the idea of changing the keys
from wsgi to web3 for the simple reason that you
will alrea
2010/9/15 Brett Cannon :
> Can I just ask why 444 since 392 was the last assigned Python 2 number?
Likely because WSGI 1.0 is PEP 333.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyth
This spec, a WSGI-like spec for Python2 and Python3 named Web3 was
accepted today as PEP 444.
http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-0444/
Comments and competing specs would be useful.
- C
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 18:16 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:46 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I don't see what we gain by holding up the 3.2 release. Some writing a
> Web application will need third-party modules anyway, so downloading
> wsgi3ref shouldn't be too painful.
I agree with you. Further, is wsgiref actually heavily used
At 11:50 PM 9/15/2010 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 21:18, P.J. Eby wrote:
> If I were to offer a suggestion to a PEP author or dictator wanting to get
> something out ASAP, it would probably be to create a compromise between the
> "flat" model (my personal favorite) and
At 11:12 PM 9/15/2010 +0200, Ãric Araujo wrote:
Unless I remember wrong, the intent was not to break code that used
pkg_resources.require('wsgiref')
More precisely, at the time it was done, setuptools was slated for
inclusion in Python 2.5, and the idea was that when modules moved
from PyPI
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:46 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
> we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
> it.
>
> Thinking out loud here to keep this discussion focused, I say we give
> a deadline for PEP
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:11:14 -0700
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
> release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
> can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgiref from the
> stdlib (which sounds unlike
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 21:18, P.J. Eby wrote:
> If I were to offer a suggestion to a PEP author or dictator wanting to get
> something out ASAP, it would probably be to create a compromise between the
> "flat" model (my personal favorite) and the mod_wsgi model, as an addendum
> to PEP 333. Spec
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 14:41, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 22:46, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
>> we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
>> it.
>
> I think that's a very good goal. G
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 22:46, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
> we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
> it.
I think that's a very good goal. Given all the times it's come up on
the Web-SIG list (I even tri
> * add a decorator to wsgiref that supports using native strings as
> output instead of bytes, for ease-of-porting (combine mod_wsgi's
> ease-of-porting w/"flat"'s simple verifiability)
Ah, thanks, I’ve been reading web-sig and was totally at a loss to
understand what a “native string” was. No
Le 15/09/2010 21:45, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
> Could we remove in any case the wsgiref.egg-info file ? Since we've
> been working on a new format for that (PEP 376), that should be
> starting to get used in the coming years, it'll be a bit of a
> non-sense to have that metadata file in the sdtlib shi
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
> we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
> it.
>
> Thinking out loud here to keep this discussion focused, I say we give
> a deadline for PEPs
Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
it.
Thinking out loud here to keep this discussion focused, I say we give
a deadline for PEPs to be submitted by October 15th. We then choose
two PEP dictators
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:45, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> At 11:11 AM 9/15/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
>>> Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
>>> release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved,
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 11:11 AM 9/15/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
>> release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
>> can convince ourselves that it's okay to de
On Sep 15, 2010, at 09:21 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>Am 15.09.2010 20:32, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
>> I would much prefer holding up the release to fix wsgiref rather
>> than remove it. I think it's an important module worthy of being in
>> the stdlib.
>
>Really? I'd like to hear from some of its use
For reference, I have developed a spec and an (untested) reference
implementation of a WSGI successor I've given the name "Web3". Ian is
not hot on this spec (he prefers native strings as environ keys). I'm
definitely not going to write a WebOb analogue, so I'd more or less
given up trying to pro
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:59 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
> For reference, I have developed a spec and an (untested) reference
> implementation of a WSGI successor I've given the name "Web3". Ian is
> not hot on this spec (he prefers native strings as environ keys).
That should read "as environ v
Am 15.09.2010 20:32, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
>>release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
>>can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgi
At 11:11 AM 9/15/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgiref from the
stdlib (which sounds unlikely but may no
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> On 9/15/2010 2:47 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
+0.5
The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSG
On Sep 15, 2010, at 02:39 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>Yeah; we have a plethora of options - hudson, pony-build, buildbot,
>pyti (http://bitbucket.org/mouad/pypi-testing-infrastructure-pyti) and
>many more. We also have the isolation tools (such as virtualenv) and
>awesome little utilities like tox (h
On 9/15/2010 2:47 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>>
>>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been bro
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>> +0.5
>>
>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
>> others, but given a lack of a
On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
> +0.5
>
> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
> others, but given a lack of a clear path forward (bugs, peps, etc), I
> don't think it's fair t
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 02:02 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>>And who do you get to maintain all the new tests and buildbots you
>>spawn from running hundreds of community projects unittests? How do
>>you know those tests are real, and actually work?
On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
>release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
>can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgiref from the
>stdlib (which sounds unlikely but ma
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Devin Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>> You need people with the time and willingness to download, install and
>>> run production code on the releases.
>>
>> This might
On Sep 15, 2010, at 02:02 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>And who do you get to maintain all the new tests and buildbots you
>spawn from running hundreds of community projects unittests? How do
>you know those tests are real, and actually work? You quickly outstrip
>the ability of the core team to stay o
Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgiref from the
stdlib (which sounds unlikely but may not be any more incompatible
than making it work properly
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:36, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> Fundamentally; I would gladly hold up 3.2 (just my opinion) for the
>> needed fixes to the standard lib [...]
>
> I think I should share a little anecdote at this point:
>
> Earlier
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Devin Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> You need people with the time and willingness to download, install and
>> run production code on the releases.
>
> This might be getting off-topic, but maybe not as many people as you
> t
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Devin Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> You need people with the time and willingness to download, install and
>> run production code on the releases.
>
> This might be getting off-topic, but maybe not as many people as you
>
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> You need people with the time and willingness to download, install and
> run production code on the releases.
This might be getting off-topic, but maybe not as many people as you
think. How many projects in pypi provide unittests? That's at
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> Fundamentally; I would gladly hold up 3.2 (just my opinion) for the
> needed fixes to the standard lib [...]
I think I should share a little anecdote at this point:
Earlier in the year I worked for a while on Django/Py3. It's actually
not t
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:35, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> ...snip...
The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
web-oriented modules. These issues have be
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:35, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> ...snip...
>>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
>>> others, but given a lack of a
On 15/09/2010 17:35, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
...snip...
The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
others, but given a lack of a clear path forward (bug
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>> no one seems to take the betas or alphas for serious test drives (to
>> be expected) with real code
>
> I wonder if there's some way to improve that situation -- perhaps by
> some engineering of the Python packaging,
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
...snip...
>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
>> others, but given a lack of a clear path forward (bugs, peps, etc), I
>> don't think it's
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:50, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:21:11 -0400
>> Steve Holden wrote:
>>>
>>> The question of when to declare 3.x the "official" release is
>>> interesting. I am inclined to say "when there's at l
Interesting. I personally use nis and poplib quite a bit, but I can see
how that would be very location-dependent.
Bill
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python
Jesse Noller wrote:
> no one seems to take the betas or alphas for serious test drives (to
> be expected) with real code
I wonder if there's some way to improve that situation -- perhaps by
some engineering of the Python packaging, or some such?
Bill
On Sep 14, 2010, at 10:34 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
>http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.6.6/
>
>..includes the text:
>
>"This is a release candidate; we currently support these formats:"
>
>Is that text meant to be there?
Nope, and fixed.
Thanks for noticing this typo.
-Barry
signature.a
On Sep 15, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
>The question of when to declare 3.x the "official" release is
>interesting. I am inclined to say "when there's at least one other
>implementation at 3.2" - even if CPython is then at 3.3 or 3.4.
The fun starts now. We've just seen the last offic
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:21:11 -0400
> Steve Holden wrote:
>>
>> The question of when to declare 3.x the "official" release is
>> interesting. I am inclined to say "when there's at least one other
>> implementation at 3.2" - even if CPython
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:21:11 -0400
Steve Holden wrote:
>
> The question of when to declare 3.x the "official" release is
> interesting. I am inclined to say "when there's at least one other
> implementation at 3.2" - even if CPython is then at 3.3 or 3.4.
I don't think that's a good criterion. 95
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
> On 9/15/2010 10:02 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2010 6:45 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:34:33 +0530, Senthil Kumaran
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14,
On 9/15/2010 10:02 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
>> On 9/14/2010 6:45 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:34:33 +0530, Senthil Kumaran
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:44:30PM +0200, Baptiste Carvello wrote:
>>A
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> On 9/14/2010 6:45 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:34:33 +0530, Senthil Kumaran
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:44:30PM +0200, Baptiste Carvello wrote:
> Antoine> Like the email package, nntplib in py3k is
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
> And again I say, if anyone knows of any budgets to which this work is
> important, the PSF will be happy to try and tap these people for money
> that can help the development effort. Frankly I am a little embarrassed
> by the poor quality of s
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:09 AM, raymond.hettinger
wrote:
> +The formal syntax makes no special provision for negative indices in
> +sequences; however, built-in sequences all provide a :meth:`__getitem__`
> +method that interprets negative indices by adding the length of the sequence
> +to the i
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:06 PM, geremy condra wrote:
> Not really. It's a metric of use, and as such a starting point in a
> discussion. After that I wouldn't take it too seriously no matter what
> metric is applied- looking at the number of downloads on pypi it's a
> fairly small sample anyway.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:06:29 pm geremy condra wrote:
>
>> I ran some statistics on the number of times modules out of the
>> stdlib got imported a few months ago
>
> What do those statistics measure?
>
> The number of individual import stat
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:18:19PM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I'm not trying to belittle the stats you have gathered, but without the
> context of *what* the numbers represent, it's impossible to put any
> meaning to them.
I thought Geremy mentioned somewhere that he collected those metrics
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:06:29 pm geremy condra wrote:
> I ran some statistics on the number of times modules out of the
> stdlib got imported a few months ago
What do those statistics measure?
The number of individual import statements with a given module name? The
number of times those imports
66 matches
Mail list logo
