On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Martin (gzlist) wrote:
> In the example I gave, 十 encodes in CP932 as '\x8f\\', and the
> function gets confused by the second byte. Obviously the right answer
> there is just to use unicode, rather than write a function that works
> with weird multibyte codecs.
T
On 9/16/2010 3:07 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is fixed, I have no idea
On 9/16/2010 3:07 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Toshio Kuratomi
> wrote:
>> You were talking about encodings that were supersets of 7-bit ASCII.
>> I think Martin was demonstrating a byte string that was a superset of
>> 7-bit
>> ASCII being fed to a stdlib function whi
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:56:56AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Martin (gzlist)
>> wrote:
>> > On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic f
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
>>> feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
>>
>> Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is fixed,
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 06:28, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Why won't you feel confident? Are there any specific issues (apart from
>> the lack of a WSGI PEP)?
>> If they are technical problems, they should be reported on the bug
>> tracker.
>>
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:56:56AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Martin (gzlist)
> wrote:
> > On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >>
> >> In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic functions make
> >> sense, the necessary and sufficient assumption
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Martin (gzlist) wrote:
> On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic functions make
>> sense, the necessary and sufficient assumption should be that the
>> encoding is a superset of 7-bit(*) ASCII. This includes
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic functions make
> sense, the necessary and sufficient assumption should be that the
> encoding is a superset of 7-bit(*) ASCII. This includes UTF-8, all
> Latin-N variant, and AFAIK also the popular CJK enc
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:48AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> >There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
>> >but the current use of string literals in th
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:48AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> >There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
> >but the current use of string literals in their implementation means
> >that bytes don't work. This turns
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
>> feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
>
> Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is fixed, I have no idea what you are
> referring to. Please do be
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
>but the current use of string literals in their implementation means
>that bytes don't work. This turns out to be a PITA for some networking
>related code which really wants to
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Why won't you feel confident? Are there any specific issues (apart from
> the lack of a WSGI PEP)?
> If they are technical problems, they should be reported on the bug
> tracker.
> If they are representational, cultural or psychological iss
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:55:16 -0500
> Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> > My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use
>> > in web applications, and is therefor
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:55:16 -0500
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> > My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use
> > in web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting porting
> > target for web projects/
> Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is fixed, I have no idea what you
> are referring to. Please do be concrete.
There's still a performance issue with pickling, but if issue 3873 could
be resolved, Python 3 would actually be faster there.
- Hagen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On 9/15/2010 8:55 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
To try (again) to make things concrete here:
I didn't work to get Django running on Python 3.0 because it was just too slow.
Soon after 3.0 was released, it was discovered and acknowledged thay the
new I/O has some speed problems. (Why not disco
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use in
> web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting porting target for
> web projects/libraries and frameworks.
To try (again) to make things concrete her
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use in
> web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting porting target for
> web projects/libraries and frameworks.
Python 3 is already quite well done and ve
On Sep 15, 2010, at 6:44 PM, James Mills wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> I don't see what we gain by holding up the 3.2 release. Some writing a
>> Web application will need third-party modules anyway, so downloading
>> wsgi3ref shouldn't be too painful.
>
>
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I don't see what we gain by holding up the 3.2 release. Some writing a
> Web application will need third-party modules anyway, so downloading
> wsgi3ref shouldn't be too painful.
I agree with you. Further, is wsgiref actually heavily used
23 matches
Mail list logo
