[Python-Dev] Re: SC feedback: PEP 648 -- Extensible customizations of the interpreter at startup

Hello All, I've pushed a change to rework a bit the pep wording and add further details on its working. It needed indeed some extra work. PR still in flight: https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1941 I've also changed it to target 3.11. I believe most of your concerns should be answered in the PEP

[Python-Dev] Re: Deferral of PEP 648 - Extensible customizations of the interpreter at startup

Hi Barry, After the feedback and seeing how busy the 3.10 release is being, I was not expecting less. As mentioned, I have no rush in getting this through. Let's put the right time into it. I have been updating the PEP with the feedback you gave me and I expect to get an updated version up before

[Python-Dev] Re: SC feedback: PEP 648 -- Extensible customizations of the interpreter at startup

Thanks all. I'll address this feedback next week. Regards, Mario On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 03:01, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Kind of :) > > PEP 648 would definitely allow us to deprecate the executable part of pth > files. I let my own biases leak in to my response because I would like to > find a way

[Python-Dev] Proposal: Interpreter customization at Python startup time

Hi All, I posted a proposal in Python ideas that I think deserves to be discussed among core devs and the community. In short, it aims at providing a way of customizing Python startup in a similar way of what sitecustomize provides today. Link to the discourse thread: https://discuss.python.org/t

Re: [Python-Dev] Positional-only parameters in Python

Ups, indeed, totally missed it. Removed it from https://github.com/mariocj89/peps/blob/pep-pos-only/pep-.rst On 21 January 2018 at 21:44, Larry Hastings wrote: > > > On 01/21/2018 05:59 AM, Mario Corchero wrote: > > Credit for making left option groups higher precedence

Re: [Python-Dev] Positional-only parameters in Python

Thanks, Oleg! Fixed that and a bunch more typos in the GitHub document. https://github.com/mariocj89/peps/blob/pep-pos-only/pep-.rst On 21 January 2018 at 14:16, Oleg Broytman wrote: > Hi! A few minor corrections below. > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 01:59:49PM +0000, Mario

Re: [Python-Dev] Positional-only parameters in Python

ob/pep-pos-only/pep-.rst PEP: Title: Python Positional-Only Parameters Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ Author: Larry Hastings , Pablo Galindo , Mario Corchero Discussions-To: Python-Dev Status: Type: Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 20-Jan-2018 Overview

Re: [Python-Dev] Positional-only parameters in Python

OK, if no one has anything against, Pablo and I can start a PEP just for the ‘/‘ simple syntax (without the argument group part). On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 at 07:17, Larry Hastings wrote: > > > On 01/19/2018 08:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > - proposing the full PEP 547, including the "argument groups

Re: [Python-Dev] Positional-only parameters in Python

I am happy to put some work into this (and Pablo Galindo in CC offered to pair on it) but it is not clear for me whether the next step is drafting a new PEP or this is just blocked on "re-evaluating" the current one. If someone can clarify we can put something together. Thanks! On 18 January 201

Re: [Python-Dev] Positional-only parameters in Python

Hi Victor, I'd like to work on it if you accept "a random person" to work on it (saying it in case the mail was directed to core developers). Regards, Mario On 17 January 2018 at 14:34, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > In Februrary 2017, I proposed on python-ideas to change the Python > syntax

Re: [Python-Dev] iso8601 parsing

There were discussions about having it a function, making the constructor of datetime accept a string(this was strongly rejected), having a static funcion in datetime, etc... and there was no real agreement. If the agreement is that we want a funcion to be able to parse it I am sure Paul G will be

Re: [Python-Dev] iso8601 parsing

The basics should be possible already with issue31800 , that said the issue you reference is to get a single function to parse it (without having to put the whole format), which would be neat. I believe Paul Ganssle is planning on adding it to dateutil as well:

Re: [Python-Dev] Analog of PEP 448 for dicts (unpacking in assignment with dict rhs)

Do you mean making getitems call itemgetter? At the moment we can already do with itemgetter: from operator import itemgetter a,b = itemgetter("a", "b")(d) > I tend to post this every time the topic comes up, but: it's highly > unlikely we'll get syntax for this when we don't even have a bu