On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 at 20:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:28 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whenever someone asks me which version to use, I alwasys respond with
a question -- what do you want to use it for?
In the longer term, I thin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> But still, you can't honestly expect me to recommend 3.0 until someone
> has gotten at least a basic skeleton of Twisted up and running under it
> :). My own attempts to do so have failed miserably, to the point where
> I can't even produce a useful bug report w
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aahz wrote:
>> I believe that it would be a shame and a disservice to Python if there
>> were a large proportion of the Python community that discouraged the use
>> of 3.0; I also believe it would be a shame and a disservice
> Sorry, I don't think I can do that. It's difficult-to-impossible to leap
> straight from Python 2.2 or 2.3 to 3.0
My experience is different. That is very well possible (of course, I
haven't heard in a long time of a project that needs to maintain
compatibility with 2.2).
Regards,
Martin
_
Aahz wrote:
> I believe that it would be a shame and a disservice to Python if there
> were a large proportion of the Python community that discouraged the use
> of 3.0; I also believe it would be a shame and a disservice to Python if
> you (and other people) tell conservatives like me that we shou
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> But I do *not* think it is a good idea to emphasize elsewhere that
> most people shouldn't use Python 3.0. Py3k will have a hard enough
> time gaining mindshare without the very developers who created
> it discouraging its use. If you can't find it
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 22:03, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> In spite of Python being a programming language, there is a difference
>>> between 'casual user of the language' and 'library developer'; 3.0 is
>>> certainly a must for all actual library deve
On 08:51 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:19 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also don't think 3.0 is perfect, and five years on, there will be a
temptation to make more "just this once" incompatible changes. Of
course,
you've promised these changes won't be made, and *
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course. Grumpy as we are, we're preparing for the 3.0 migration, and
> have been for a while. There are tickets open in the tracker, a buildslave
> reporting 2.6's -3 warnings, and soon, apparently, a buildslave that will
> attempt
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:19 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also don't think 3.0 is perfect, and five years on, there will be a
> temptation to make more "just this once" incompatible changes. Of course,
> you've promised these changes won't be made, and *this* set of design
> mistakes will b
On 06:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do think that in many cases *some* support from the regular
maintainers of a library would be needed -- for example if you (in
particular) were to express a negative attitude towards porting
T
As far as the original point of this thread, I started off just
defending the cautionary text already present in the announcements and
on the website. Since I'm not advocating any changes to that (the brief
caveat on the "download" page is fine), we'll just have to agree to
disagree on the abs
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 06:03:55AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-> On 01:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-> >>In spite of Python being a programming language, there is a difference
-> >>between 'casual user of the language' and 'library developer'; 3.0 is
-> >>certainly a must for all actual lib
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 10:48 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> When he learned he had to go
>> back and relearn and fix them by hand, his actual words were "if thats the
>> case, I'm gonna be forced to use another language". I hope that isn't a
>> typical ex
On 10:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When he learned he had to go
back and relearn and fix them by hand, his actual words were "if thats
the
case, I'm gonna be forced to use another language". I hope that isn't a
typical example of such a case, but I can partly understand the
sentiment.
Thi
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The best thing for 3.0 adoption would be a 3.0 "welcoming committee". A
> group of hackers wandering from one popular open source library to another,
> writing patches for 3.x compatibility issues. There must be lots of people
> who c
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 02:47, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In the mean time, I don't mind if people learn 3.0 first and 2.6
>> second. It's probably easier that way than the other way around. :-)
>
> It m
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:28 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5 Dec, 06:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> With all due respect, for me, "library support" and "serious use" are
>>> synonymous.
>>
>> Glyph, I cannot have a discussio
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 02:47, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the mean time, I don't mind if people learn 3.0 first and 2.6
> second. It's probably easier that way than the other way around. :-)
It may be easier in a vacuum -- although I don't think it is. 3.0 is more
logical th
Bill Janssen wrote:
> Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Allow me to paraphrase glyph (with whom I'm in complete agreement, for what
>> it's worth): many newbies will be disappointed by Python if they start with
>> Python 3.0 and discover that most of the cool possibilities they had he
On 01:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In spite of Python being a programming language, there is a difference
between 'casual user of the language' and 'library developer'; 3.0 is
certainly a must for all actual library developers, and I'm sure most
of
them know about 3.0 by now. We're talking ab
On 5 Dec, 06:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With all due respect, for me, "library support" and "serious use" are
synonymous.
Glyph, I cannot have a discussion with you if every single post of
yours is longer than my combined daily
Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Allow me to paraphrase glyph (with whom I'm in complete agreement, for what
> it's worth): many newbies will be disappointed by Python if they start with
> Python 3.0 and discover that most of the cool possibilities they had heard
> about are 'being work
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:47:45 pm Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But I disagree that "most of the cool possibilities they have heard
> about" are necessarily third party libraries. Python's standard
> library has lots of stuff to offer.
+1 on that. I've been using Python for a decade now, and the first th
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 19:10, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > With all due respect, for me, "library support" and "serious use" are
>> > sy
> There was already "Programming Language :: Python", provided by many
> packages. I think version compatibility relationships meant by each of
> these classifiers should be made explicit, wherever it is that
> documentation for classifiers is provided.
>
> I don't recall having seen any such doc
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 19:10, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With all due respect, for me, "library support" and "serious use" are
> > synonymous.
>
> Glyph, I cannot have a discussion with you if every single post of
> Good. Now we just need to populate them. I take it the classifiers without
> minor numbers imply any known minor version (e.g., 2 ==> 2.3 and greater)?
Perhaps. As usual, they mean what people use them for.
I intended them to mean 2.x and 3.x, respectively, with no constraint on
x (i.e. inclu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregor Lingl wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>> To be fair, if someone asked me specifically about educating non-
>> programmer adults about programming, I would probably at least
>> *mention* py3, if not recommend it outright. The improved c
On 5-Dec-08, at 8:40 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 05:40:46AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For most users, especially new users who have yet to be impressed
with
Python's power, 2.x is much better. It's not like "library
support" is
one small check-box on the languag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
To be fair, if someone asked me specifically about educating non-
programmer adults about programming, I would probably at least
*mention* py3, if not recommend it outright. The improved consistency
is worth a lot in an educational setting. (But, if one is educa
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
I hear some folks are considering advertising 3.0 as experimental or
not ready for serious use yet.
I think that's too negative -- we should encourage people to use it,
period. They'll have to decide for themselves whether they can live
with the lack of ported 3rd par
On Dec 5, 2008, at 10:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good. Now we just need to populate them. I take it the classifiers
without
minor numbers imply any known minor version (e.g., 2 ==> 2.3 and
greater)?
This is an excellent question, Skip.
There was already "Programming Language :: Pyth
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all due respect, for me, "library support" and "serious use" are
> synonymous.
Glyph, I cannot have a discussion with you if every single post of
yours is longer than my combined daily output. Please spend some time
writing shorte
On Dec 4, 2008, at 7:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:29:31PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box
listing
which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
on
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 05:40:46AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For most users, especially new users who have yet to be impressed with
> Python's power, 2.x is much better. It's not like "library support" is
> one small check-box on the language's feature sheet: most of the
> attractive
Martin> There is. There have been the following trove classifiers
Martin> defined for a few weeks now:
Martin> Programming Language :: Python :: 2
Martin> Programming Language :: Python :: 2.3
Martin> Programming Language :: Python :: 2.4
Martin> Programming Language :: Py
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:35 AM, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:29:31PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box listing
>> which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
>> once every coupl
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:05:05 -0800, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:40 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The default case, the case of the user without the wherewithal
to understand the nuances of the distinction between 2.x and 3.x, is a user
who should use 2.x
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/576550/
This recipe shows how to use gsl FFT with python 3.
ctypes is really good!
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
> On Dec 4, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
>>>
>>> The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was
>>> built,
>>> just not posted correctly.
>
>> That doesn't mean very much. I built i
On 06:05 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:40 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The default case, the case of the user without the wherewithal
to understand the nuances of the distinction between 2.x and 3.x, is a
user
who should use 2.x.
Not at all clear. If they're not s
On Dec 5, 2008, at 2:27 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
There is. There have been the following trove classifiers defined for
a few weeks now:
Wonderful! Thanks for clueing me in. I'll update my projects to use
those in future releases.
-Fred
--
Fred Drake
> I agree, this would be ideal. I'm not sure the metadata is there to
> support it, though.
There is. There have been the following trove classifiers defined for
a few weeks now:
Programming Language :: Python :: 2
Programming Language :: Python :: 2.3
Programming Language :: Python :: 2.4
Progr
> Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box listing
> which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
> once every couple of weeks. That way, we're not explicitly
> discouraging adoption of 3.0, we're just listing what support is
> then currently available (if you
On 04:16 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hear some folks are considering advertising 3.0 as experimental or
not ready for serious use yet.
With all due respect, for me, "library support" and "serious use" are
synonymous. When prompted I would say that 2.5 is probably the version
that a new Py
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:40 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The default case, the case of the user without the wherewithal
> to understand the nuances of the distinction between 2.x and 3.x, is a user
> who should use 2.x.
Not at all clear. If they're not sensitive to those nuances it's just
as
On 4 Dec, 07:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter statement worries me. It seems to unnecessarily undermine
adoption of 3.0. It essentially says, "don't use this". Is that what
we want?
I think so. The default case, the case of the user without the
wherewithal to understand the nua
I hear some folks are considering advertising 3.0 as experimental or
not ready for serious use yet.
I think that's too negative -- we should encourage people to use it,
period. They'll have to decide for themselves whether they can live
with the lack of ported 3rd party libraries -- which may reso
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that this specific idea (the box with the list of
supported applications / libraries) should be implementable as a
simple query against PyPI. I don't know if it actually is :), but
it should be. In general it would be ni
On 02:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:29:31PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box listing
which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
once every couple of weeks. That way, we're not explicitly
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:29:31PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box listing
> which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
> once every couple of weeks. That way, we're not explicitly
That's an excellent idea. We coul
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
From: "A.M. Kuchling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perhaps the statement could say something like "we do not expect
most Python packages will be ported to the 3.x series until around the
time 3.1 is released in X months." (where X=12? 6?)
I would leave out any discussion of
2008/12/4 Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Also, we don't know the timing of the third-party updates.
Some may never get converted. Some may convert quickly
and easily. Someone (perhaps me) may organize a series of
funded sprints to get many of the major packages converted.
From: "Paul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 4, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was
built,
just not posted correctly.
That doesn't mean very much. I built
> ISTM, 3.0 is in pretty good shape. There is nothing intrinsically wrong
> with it.
I think it has many bugs, some known before the release, but many more
yet to show up. I agree that the design is good; the implementation will
certainly improve (I deliberately didn't say "could have been better
>> I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
>
> The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was built,
> just not posted correctly.
That doesn't mean very much. I built it on my local machine. Anybody
with subversion and python could do that; the documentation is i
2008/12/4 Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Also, we don't know the timing of the third-party updates.
> Some may never get converted. Some may convert quickly
> and easily. Someone (perhaps me) may organize a series of
> funded sprints to get many of the major packages converted.
One pie
From: "A.M. Kuchling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perhaps the statement could say something like "we do not expect
most Python packages will be ported to the 3.x series until
around the time 3.1 is released in X months." (where X=12? 6?)
I would leave out any discussion of 3.1. Its content and rele
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:20:34PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
> Hmm, looking back, the quote Raymond is referring to is just a
> suggestion for additional text on the 3.0 page. I agree with him that
> it's a bit too negative.
Actually I want it to be an entirely separate page so that we can
point pe
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> * that 3.1 will rearrange the standard library in mostly-known ways, and
> * that we expect people to use 3.0 mostly for compatibility testing,
> not going into serious production use until 3.1 or maybe even 3.2.
As Raymond notes, this is probably too negative: for new p
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:20:34 +, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/12/4 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
One thing I'd like to see more clearly stated is that there's no
reason NOT to use Python 3.0 for new code. I don't think that message
has really come across yet - in spite
2008/12/4 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> * that 3.1 will rearrange the standard library in mostly-known ways, and
>>> * that we expect people to use 3.0 mostly for compatibility testing, not
>>> going into serious production
>>> use until 3.1 or maybe even 3.2.
>> The latter statement wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 4, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
From: "A.M. Kuchling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think we should also have a statement upon on python.org about
future plans: e.g.
* that there will be a Python 2.7 that will incorporate what we
lea
From: "A.M. Kuchling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think we should also have a statement upon on python.org about
future plans: e.g.
* that there will be a Python 2.7 that will incorporate what we learn from
people trying to port,
* that 3.1 will rearrange the standard library in mostly-known ways, an
Georg Brandl wrote:
I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was built,
just not posted correctly.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/
2008/12/4 A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * that there will be a Python 2.7 that will incorporate what we learn from
> people trying to port,
> * that 3.1 will rearrange the standard library in mostly-known ways, and
> * that we expect people to use 3.0 mostly for compatibility testing,
> n
Georg Brandl wrote:
> Nick Coghlan schrieb:
>> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>> I tried to find the documentation here:
>>>
>>> http://python.org/doc/
>>>
>>> but clicking on the links:
>>>
>>> http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/3.0.html
>>> http://docs.python.org/3.0
>> These 404 for me as well. but the dev
Nick Coghlan schrieb:
> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> I tried to find the documentation here:
>>
>> http://python.org/doc/
>>
>> but clicking on the links:
>>
>> http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/3.0.html
>> http://docs.python.org/3.0
>
> These 404 for me as well. but the dev links have already rolled
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:51:33PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I
> am happy to announce the release of Python 3.0 final.
Yay!
> We are confident that Python 3.0 is of the same high quality as our
> previous releases, such as
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> I tried to find the documentation here:
>
> http://python.org/doc/
>
> but clicking on the links:
>
> http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/3.0.html
> http://docs.python.org/3.0
These 404 for me as well. but the dev links have already rolled over to
3.1a0.
There are also no cr
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
>> On this page:
>> http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
>>
>> The text "This is a proeuction release" should probab
On Dec 3, 2008, at 7:51 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I
am happy to announce the release of Python 3.0 final.
Props to all the folks whose hard work made this possible! You guys
rock!
-- Ed Leafe
__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On this page:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
The text "This is a proeuction release" should probably read "This is
a production release". It would give a better first impression :)
Fixe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I
am happy to announce the release of Python 3.0 final.
Python 3.0 (a.k.a. "Python 3000" or "Py3k") represents a major
milestone in Python's history, and was nearly three years i
75 matches
Mail list logo
