On behalf of the Python development team, I'm happy to announce the
fourth alpha release of Python 3.3.0.
This is a preview release, and its use is not recommended in
production settings.
Python 3.3 includes a range of improvements of the 3.x series, as well
as easier porting between 2.x and 3.x.
2012/5/31 Nick Coghlan :
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
>> Eric Snow wrote:
>>>
>>> The implementation for sys.implementation is going to use a new (but
>>> "private") type[1]. It's basically equivalent to the following:
>>
>>
>> Does this really need to be written in C ra
I hereby predict that Microsoft will revert this decision, and that
VS Express 11 will be able to build CPython.
But will it be able to target Windows XP?
I have now tried, and it seems that the chances are really low (unless
you use the VS 2010 tool chain, in which case you can just a
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 31, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>Personally, I suggest we just expose the new type as
>>types.SimpleNamespace (implemented in Lib/types.py as "SimpleNamespace
>>= type(sys.implementation)" and call it done.
>
> Great idea,
On May 31, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Personally, I suggest we just expose the new type as
>types.SimpleNamespace (implemented in Lib/types.py as "SimpleNamespace
>= type(sys.implementation)" and call it done.
Great idea, +1.
Eric, if you want to remove the special case for _names i
On May 31, 2012, at 01:21 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
>The implementation for sys.implementation is going to use a new (but
>"private") type[1]. It's basically equivalent to the following:
>
>class namespace:
>def __init__(self, **kwargs):
>self.__dict__.update(kwargs)
>def __repr__(self
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
> Eric Snow wrote:
>>
>> The implementation for sys.implementation is going to use a new (but
>> "private") type[1]. It's basically equivalent to the following:
>
>
> Does this really need to be written in C rather than Python?
Yes, because we
On Thu, 31 May 2012 13:11:14 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I'm not clear on why this is a metaclass rather than a simple class decorator.
Because I didn't think of it. I don't (yet) think of "class" and
"decorator" in the same sentence :)
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM, r.david.murray
> wro
Eric Snow wrote:
The implementation for sys.implementation is going to use a new (but
"private") type[1]. It's basically equivalent to the following:
Does this really need to be written in C rather than Python?
class namespace:
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
self.__dict__.update(
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:21:36AM -0600, Eric Snow wrote:
> 1. should we make the new type un-instantiable (null out tp_new and tp_init)?
Please don't. "Consenting adults" and all that. There's little things
more frustrating that having a working type that does exactly what you
want, except th
The implementation for sys.implementation is going to use a new (but
"private") type[1]. It's basically equivalent to the following:
class namespace:
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
self.__dict__.update(kwargs)
def __repr__(self):
keys = (k for k in self.__dict__ if not k.st
11 matches
Mail list logo
