Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-28 Thread Eric Snow
On Jun 28, 2016 2:56 PM, "Guido van Rossum" wrote: > > Awesome. That addresses my last concerns. PEP 520 is now accepted. > Congratulations! Yay! Thank you and to all those that gave such good feedback. -eric (phone) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-28 Thread Ethan Furman
On 06/28/2016 01:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Awesome. That addresses my last concerns. PEP 520 is now accepted. Congratulations! And more Congratulations!! -- ~Ethan~ ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mail

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-28 Thread Guido van Rossum
Awesome. That addresses my last concerns. PEP 520 is now accepted. Congratulations! On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Eric Snow wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Eric Snow >> wrote: >>> I suppose I'm having a hard time lettin

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-28 Thread Eric Snow
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Eric Snow > wrote: >> I suppose I'm having a hard time letting go of the attractiveness of >> "read-only == complete". However, given that you've been pretty clear >> what you think, I'm more at ease a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-28 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Eric Snow wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> > This version looks fine to me. >> >> Same to me, mostly. > > I've updated the PEP per everyone's comments [1], except I sti

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-28 Thread Eric Snow
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> > This version looks fine to me. > > Same to me, mostly. I've updated the PEP per everyone's comments [1], except I still haven't dropped the read-only __definition_order__ constra

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-26 Thread Armin Rigo
Hi, On 24 June 2016 at 23:52, Eric Snow wrote: > Pending feedback, the impact on Python implementations is expected to > be minimal. If a Python implementation cannot support switching to > `OrderedDict``-by-default then it can always set ``__definition_order__`` > to ``None``. That's wishful t

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-26 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Eric Snow wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > This version looks fine to me. > > \o/ > Same to me, mostly. > > The definition order question has been dropped from PEP 487, so this > > cross-reference doesn't really make sense any

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-24 Thread Nick Coghlan
This version looks fine to me. On 24 June 2016 at 14:52, Eric Snow wrote: > Background > == > > When a class is defined using a ``class`` statement, the class body > is executed within a namespace. Currently that namespace defaults to > ``dict``. If the metaclass defines ``__prepare__()

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-24 Thread Eric Snow
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Random832 wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016, at 17:52, Eric Snow wrote: >> - 2 open questions (__slots__? drop read-only requirement?) > > It's worth noting that __slots__ itself doesn't have a read-only > requirement. It can be a tuple, any iterable of strings, or a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-24 Thread Random832
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016, at 17:52, Eric Snow wrote: > - 2 open questions (__slots__? drop read-only requirement?) It's worth noting that __slots__ itself doesn't have a read-only requirement. It can be a tuple, any iterable of strings, or a single string (which means the object has a single slot).

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-24 Thread Eric Snow
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > This version looks fine to me. \o/ > The definition order question has been dropped from PEP 487, so this > cross-reference doesn't really make sense any more :) Ah, so much for my appeal to authority. > I'd characterise this section at t

[Python-Dev] PEP 520: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order (round 5)

2016-06-24 Thread Eric Snow
- a clearer motivation section - include "dunder" names - 2 open questions (__slots__? drop read-only requirement?) -eric --- PEP: 520 Title: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ Author: Eric Snow Status: Draft Ty