A.M. Kuchling schrieb:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 10:27:46PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Good point, I'll make that change if AMK agrees.
>
> It's certainly fine with me. Do we want to only make that change to
> the 2.7 "What's New", or should we also do it for the 2.6 one?
Why not for 2.6 as we
Thanks Brett. I've moved the moratorium PEP to Status: Accepted. I've
added the words about inclusion of 3.2 and exclusion of 3.3 (which
were eaten by a svn conflict when I previously tried to add them) and
added a section to th end stating that an extension will require
another PEP.
--Guido
On
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:50, geremy condra wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra wrote:
>>> I quote:
>>>
>>> "This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
>>> to the Python language syntax, seman
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 10:27:46PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Good point, I'll make that change if AMK agrees.
It's certainly fine with me. Do we want to only make that change to
the 2.7 "What's New", or should we also do it for the 2.6 one?
--amk
___
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra wrote:
>> I quote:
>>
>> "This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
>> to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
>> of *at least two years*
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
>> Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
>> features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra wrote:
> I quote:
>
> "This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
> to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
> of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1."
>
> Emphasis mine.
I since ad
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
> Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
> features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.
Oh no, not the eve/odd numb
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should ha
On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impre
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
>> date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
>> that Python the language is moribund. It
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
> date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
> that Python the language is moribund. It says, this is an exceptional
> pause, not a permanent halt.
Greg Ewing canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
>
> If anonymous code blocks still get discussed even when
> they have no chance of being accepted, this suggests that
> a moratorium is *not* going to stop discussion of new
> features.
Well, if they get discussed, it's probably that some people can't help
p
Gregory P. Smith schrieb:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Yuvgoog Greenle wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward wrote:
>>>
>>> A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
>>>
>>
>> I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
>> if not for the deprecation
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
He wanted to introduce a moratorium at least partially because he was
tired of endless threads about anonymous code blocks, etc. Which aren't
going to be included in the language anyway, so he may as well make a
point to say "and neither will anything else for a while".
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Yuvgoog Greenle wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward wrote:
>>
>> A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
>>
>
> I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
> if not for the deprecation warnings. Most people won't turn on
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
He wanted to introduce a moratorium at least partially because he was
tired of endless threads about anonymous code blocks, etc. Which aren't
going to be included in the language anyway, so he may as well make a
point to say "and neither will anything else for a while".
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Willem, the rationale for this PEP is to give alternative
> implementations the chance to catch up with CPython.
>
> Given your statement that CLPython is quite complete on the language
> level, but missing standard library features, how do
...
> A moratorium isn't cost-free. With the back-end free to change, patches
> will go stale over 2+ years. People will lose interest or otherwise
> move on. Those with good ideas but little patience will be discouraged.
> I fully expect that, human nature being as it is, those proposing a
>
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:46:00 pm Willem Broekema wrote:
> CLPython is in steady development, quite complete and stable on the
> language level (somewhere between 2.5 and 2.6), but missing most
> built-in library functionality. (It reuses the pure-Python parts of
> the stdlib.)
>
> As its developer,
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:05:17 am Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Guido van Rossum
wrote:
> > I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
> > SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
>
> I haven't seen substantial opposition against the P
exar...@twistedmatrix.com schrieb:
> On 12:10 pm, s...@pobox.com wrote:
>>Guido> ... it's IMO pretty mysterious if you encounter this and
>>don't
>>Guido> already happen to know what it means.
>>
>>If you require parens maybe it parses better:
>>
>>import (a or b or c) as mod
>>
>>Give
On 12:10 pm, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Guido> ... it's IMO pretty mysterious if you encounter this and
don't
Guido> already happen to know what it means.
If you require parens maybe it parses better:
import (a or b or c) as mod
Given that the or operator shortcuts I think that (a or b or
Guido> ... it's IMO pretty mysterious if you encounter this and don't
Guido> already happen to know what it means.
If you require parens maybe it parses better:
import (a or b or c) as mod
Given that the or operator shortcuts I think that (a or b or c) terminates
once a module is fou
On Nov 6, 2009, at 4:52 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 09:48 pm, rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 at 15:48, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
Documentation would be great, but then you have to get people to
read the documentation and that's kind of tricky. Better would be
~b
<4222a8490911051521r1b9c8165id6e0f12d62da0...@mail.gmail.com>
<48c184130911051555r9a5b78cs3a13cb1345d3c...@mail.gmail.com>
<20091106001430.3229.796306500.divmod.xquotient@localhost.localdomain>
<4af3cf69.6090...@gmx.net>
<20091
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:35, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Longer term, a solution may be to extend the standard deprecation period
> one release and make pending deprecation warnings required rather than
> optional. That way, on the ball developers would have a full release to
> quash deprecation warnin
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I don't know how mature or active it is, so it may not count as either
> major or complete, but there's also CLPython:
>
> http://common-lisp.net/project/clpython/
CLPython is in steady development, quite complete and stable on the
language
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 19:23, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 15:26, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that there are better ways to
pre-announce that a module is going t
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 19:23, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 15:26, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> I have come to the conclusion that there are better ways to
>>> pre-announce that a module is going to disappear instead of
>>>
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:13:55 pm Michael Foord wrote:
> There are several partial implementations, including Python inspired
> languages, but if we are looking at 'major complete implementations'
> then the current list seems to be: CPython, Jython, IronPython and
> PyPy. Even Unladen Swallow is a f
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 15:26, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> I have come to the conclusion that there are better ways to
>> pre-announce that a module is going to disappear instead of
>> deprecation warnings.
>
> What exactly are those better ways
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't recall any, and man
On 5 Nov, 11:55 pm, bobbyrw...@gmail.com wrote:
What exactly are those better ways? Document as deprecated only?
-Brett
A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
Lord knows I'm sick of filtering them out of logs.
A switch to enable deprecation warnings would give developers a
chance to see them w
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward wrote:
>
> A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
>
>
I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
if not for the deprecation warnings. Most people won't turn on the switch
with the extra warnings.
--yuv
> What exactly are those better ways? Document as deprecated only?
>
> -Brett
A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
Lord knows I'm sick of filtering them out of logs.
A switch to enable deprecation warnings would give developers a
chance to see them when migrating to a new version of python. And
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 15:26, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> I'm against restricting deprecation warnings within the stdlib as part
>> of this. I actually want more things cleaned up and possibly
>> deprecated. That being said, a deprecation warning just means we will
>> remove it One Day - anyt
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
>>> can't recall any, and many people have explicitly poste
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 14:53, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
>> can't recall any, and many people have explicitly posted in support of
>> it. So unless opposition suddenly appears
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
>> can't recall any, and many people have explicitly posted in support of
>> it. So unless opposition suddenly appea
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
> can't recall any, and many people have explicitly posted in support of
> it. So unless opposition suddenly appears in the next few days, I'll
> move it to the Accepted state
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 14:20, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2009-11-03 18:35:10 Guido van Rossum napisał(a):
>> I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
>> SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
>>
>> On python-ideas the moratorium idea got f
2009-11-03 18:35:10 Guido van Rossum napisał(a):
> I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
> SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
>
> On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
> (more positive than I'd expected, in fact) but I'm b
[GvR]
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't recall any, and many people have explicitly posted in support of
it. So unless opposition suddenly appears in the next few days, I'll
move it to the Accepted state next Monday.
But it would have been so much fun to
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
> SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't recall any, and many people have explicitly
Stefan wrote:
> I assume that this is artificially exaggerated to make a point, as this
> behaviour is obviously not a technical requirement but an optimisation,
> which could potentially be disabled.
>
If there's a way to disable this then that's fine and IMO when it was disabled
you'd still be
Dino Viehland, 05.11.2009 19:35:
> Stefan wrote:
>> It /does/ make some static assumptions in that it considers builtins
>> true
>> builtins. However, it does not prevent you from replacing them in your
>> code, as long as you do it inside the module. Certainly a restriction
>> compared to Python,
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Dino Viehland wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
>> It /does/ make some static assumptions in that it considers builtins
>> true
>> builtins. However, it does not prevent you from replacing them in your
>> code, as long as you do it inside the module. Certainly a restriction
>
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
> SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
>
+1 from me.
-- Alexandre
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pyth
Jack Diederich wrote:
> +1. There are no compelling language changes on the horizon ("yield
> from" is nice but not necessary).
Another +1 here.
A note in the PEP that there are no changes to SVN that would need to be
rolled back due to the moratorium would be a good addition (as per
Antoine's r
On Nov 3, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly p
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> This suspension of features is designed to allow non-CPython implementations
>> to "catch up" to the core implementation of the language, help ease adoption
>> of Python 3.x, and provide a more stable base for the community.
>
> I'd also add
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
> SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
>
> On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
> (more positive than I'd expected, in fact) b
Guido van Rossum writes:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> > One question:
> >
> > There are currently number of patch waiting on the tracker for
> > additional Unicode feature support and it's also likely that we'll
> > want to upgrade to a more recent Unicode versi
+1. There are no compelling language changes on the horizon ("yield
from" is nice but not necessary). I see the main benefit of a
moratorium as social rather than technical by encouraging people to
work on the lib instead of the language. Plus, I'd gladly proxy my
vote to any one of the three PE
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Are you going to gauge it roughly from python-dev feedback, or should
> we take a more formal vote on python-committers once the PEP has
> settled?
I'll not take a formal vote unless the discussion suggests there's a
lot of pushback. So far I
On 4/11/2009 4:35 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
Good move, +1.
Cheers,
Mark
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected, in fact) but I'm brac
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> fierce discussion here on python-dev. It's important to me that if if
> this is accepted it is a "rough consensus" decision (working code we
+1 to the PEP.
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.pytho
Guido> I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium",
Guido> into SVN.
LGTM.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
> SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
>
> On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
> (more positive than I'd expected, in fact) but I'm bracing myself for
> fierc
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 09:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
> SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
>
> On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
> (more positive than I'd expected, in fact) but
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected,
> * General language semantics
> The language operates as-is with only specific exemptions (see
> below).
Would PEP 382 (namespace packages) fall under the moratorium?
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> * General language semantics
>> The language operates as-is with only specific exemptions (see
>> below).
>
> Would PEP 382 (namespace packages) fall under the moratorium?
Import semantics are a bit of a gray area. However I thi
Guido van Rossum python.org> writes:
>
> The PEP tries to spell out some gray areas but I'm sure there will be
> others; that's life. Do note that the PEP proposes to be *retroactive*
> back to the 3.1 release, i.e. the "frozen" version of the language is
> the state in which it was released as 3
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected, in fact) but I'm bracing myself for
fierce discussion here on python-dev. It'
68 matches
Mail list logo
