Am 10.03.2014 23:58, schrieb Allen Li:
> I'm not a dev, so my comment doesn't have that much weight, but it is
> possible to stop flooding the mailing list with idle chitchat about
> something mostly irrelevant and non-productive?
>
> There's nothing wrong with the current Python versioning scheme
Paul Moore writes:
> I understand that - my concern is that people reading such comments
> out of context might not realise this ("after all, that was what
> Python 3000 meant, then you went and implemented it").
Sure, but why worry about it? The important part of "willful
ignorance" is the "
On 10Mar2014 14:55, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Last 5 years, I spend significant time to port a lot of Python 2 code
> on Python 3. [... troubles ...]
> So can we please try to stop scheduling another major Python version
> breaking almost all modules and all applications just to be pendantic?
> No,
I'm not a dev, so my comment doesn't have that much weight, but it is
possible to stop flooding the mailing list with idle chitchat about
something mostly irrelevant and non-productive?
There's nothing wrong with the current Python versioning scheme. Python
4 is not planned for the near future.
On 10/03/2014 22:28, Greg Ewing wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
Terrible idea. Would wreak havoc with comparisons. No. Python 3 is all
about Unicode, so the right way to proceed is 3.8, 3.9, 3.:, 3.;, 3.<,
3.=, 3.>, 3.?, 3.@, 3.A.
And we have all of UCS-4 to play with, so for all
practical purpos
MRAB wrote:
What does "irregardless" mean?
It's what people say when they misunderestimate the
importance of correct prefix usage in English.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-de
Chris Angelico wrote:
Terrible idea. Would wreak havoc with comparisons. No. Python 3 is all
about Unicode, so the right way to proceed is 3.8, 3.9, 3.:, 3.;, 3.<,
3.=, 3.>, 3.?, 3.@, 3.A.
And we have all of UCS-4 to play with, so for all
practical purposes the 3.x line can live forever!
The d
On 10/03/2014 19:28, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 03/10/2014 11:21 AM, MRAB wrote:
What does "irregardless" mean?
The same thing as "regardless", with an extra syllable just for fun.
--
~Ethan~
Is this the UK, US, Australian or some other "regardless"?
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our
On 10 March 2014 19:42, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 10.03.14 20:50, Paul Moore написав(ла):
>
>> I have seen a number of postings recently pointing to things as "not
>> until Python 4000" or "not until Python 4.0" (yours was not one that I
>> noticed, actually, this is a more general point).
>
>
> T
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> This is just an euphemism for "not in observable future".
>
>
is ANY of the future observable?
Oh right, The Time Machine!
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2014 02:50 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> I have seen a number of postings recently pointing to things as "not
> until Python 4000" or "not until Python 4.0" (yours was not one that
> I noticed, actually, this is a more general point).
>
> I do thi
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:47:32PM +0200, Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> 10.03.14 19:44, Oleg Broytman написав(ла):
> >There is one minor annoyance with double digits:
> >
> >$ ls -l
> >total 16
> >drwx-- 2 phd phd 4096 Mar 10 21:42 3.1
> >drwx-- 2 phd phd 4096 Mar 10 21:42 3.10
> >drwx---
On 03/10/2014 11:21 AM, MRAB wrote:
What does "irregardless" mean?
The same thing as "regardless", with an extra syllable just for fun.
--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
10.03.14 19:44, Oleg Broytman написав(ла):
There is one minor annoyance with double digits:
$ ls -l
total 16
drwx-- 2 phd phd 4096 Mar 10 21:42 3.1
drwx-- 2 phd phd 4096 Mar 10 21:42 3.10
drwx-- 2 phd phd 4096 Mar 10 21:42 3.2
... ...
drwx-- 2
On 3/10/2014 12:29 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I don't think there'd be huge problems
with a 4.0 release that's just like 3.10 except that it's a little
more free with removal of deprecateds. Maybe that could be the point
at which 2.x compatibility is dropped,
... and the point at which those of
10.03.14 20:50, Paul Moore написав(ла):
I have seen a number of postings recently pointing to things as "not
until Python 4000" or "not until Python 4.0" (yours was not one that I
noticed, actually, this is a more general point).
This is just an euphemism for "not in observable future".
_
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
> You forgot 3., and 3.$.
>
They're both earlier than digits. Comma is 2C and dollar is 24, I
remember those from the earliest days of playing around in assembly
language on an Epson PC-compatible running MS-DOS 5 :)
But that's beside the poi
On 10 March 2014 17:08, R. David Murray wrote:
> We had this discussion a bit ago, and my sense was that we tentatively
> decided that we were just going to deprecate and remove things as
> appropriate, irregardless of version number. I used "4.0" in my
> message about 'U' as a shorthand for "som
This is my standpoint. The major releases would remove the code that's been
marked as "deprecated". You probably would've know for the past 3 versions
anyway...
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:08 AM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
> > (That said,
On 03/10/2014 02:21 PM, MRAB wrote:
> On 2014-03-10 17:08, R. David Murray wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:06:22 -, Brett Cannon
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon Mar 10 2014 at 11:50:54 AM, Victor Stinner
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > 2014-03-10 16:25 GMT+01:00 Stefan Richthofer
>>> :
>>> > > I don't see the
On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:21 PM, MRAB wrote:
> On 2014-03-10 17:08, R. David Murray wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:06:22 -, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> On Mon Mar 10 2014 at 11:50:54 AM, Victor Stinner
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > 2014-03-10 16:25 GMT+01:00 Stefan Richthofer :
>>> > > I don't see the p
You forgot 3., and 3.$.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:04:08 +0100
> > "Stefan Richthofer" wrote:
> >
> >> > Guido famously hates two digit minor version numbers. :)
> >>
> >> This i
On 2014-03-10 17:08, R. David Murray wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:06:22 -, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Mon Mar 10 2014 at 11:50:54 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> 2014-03-10 16:25 GMT+01:00 Stefan Richthofer :
> > I don't see the point in this discussion.
> > As far as I know, the major version i
On 2014-03-10 17:06, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:04:08 +0100
"Stefan Richthofer" wrote:
> Guido famously hates two digit minor version numbers. :)
This is no problem either. Simply switch to hexadecimal numbering ;)
O
Am 10.03.14 18:01, schrieb Tres Seaver:
> On 03/10/2014 12:49 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> I think it got lost in email threading, but Barry pointed out that
>> Guido famously hates double digit version numbers (as do I, probably
>> partially because he does after all these years =).
>
> "Guido h
On 03/10/2014 08:59 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mar 10, 2014, at 04:25 PM, Stefan Richthofer wrote:
I don't see any reason to bump
the major version number until after Python 3.9.
Even then, there is no need for 4.0; you can just have 3.10, 3.11 etc.
Guido famously hates two digit minor versio
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:37:45PM +, Brett Cannon
wrote:
> On Mon Mar 10 2014 at 12:08:55 PM, Victor Stinner
> wrote:
>
> > >> I suggest to wait less than 8 years
> > >> for Python 4.
> > >
> > > Why? What's special about 8 years?
> >
> > It's the time between Python 2.0 and 3.0.
>
> But
Hi!
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:49:44PM +, Brett Cannon
wrote:
> I think it got lost in email threading, but Barry pointed out that Guido
> famously hates double digit version numbers (as do I, probably partially
> because he does after all these years =).
There is one minor annoyance wit
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:08 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> (That said, I
> do see some merit to doing some extra cleaning at the 4.0
> boundary, just for mental convenience.)
A transition from 3.9 to 4.0 that removes a whole lot of deprecated
aliases and such wouldn't be a bad thing. It's technic
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:06:22 -, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Mon Mar 10 2014 at 11:50:54 AM, Victor Stinner
> wrote:
>
> > 2014-03-10 16:25 GMT+01:00 Stefan Richthofer :
> > > I don't see the point in this discussion.
> > > As far as I know, the major version is INTENDED to
> > > indicate backwa
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:04:08 +0100
> "Stefan Richthofer" wrote:
>
>> > Guido famously hates two digit minor version numbers. :)
>>
>> This is no problem either. Simply switch to hexadecimal numbering ;)
>
> Or wrap around to negative number
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2014 12:49 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think it got lost in email threading, but Barry pointed out that
> Guido famously hates double digit version numbers (as do I, probably
> partially because he does after all these years =).
"Guido hates
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:04:08 +0100
"Stefan Richthofer" wrote:
> > Guido famously hates two digit minor version numbers. :)
>
> This is no problem either. Simply switch to hexadecimal numbering ;)
Or wrap around to negative numbers (a minus sign isn't technically a
digit, is it?).
Regards
Anto
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:50:12 +0100
Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2014-03-10 16:25 GMT+01:00 Stefan Richthofer :
> > I don't see the point in this discussion.
> > As far as I know, the major version is INTENDED to
> > indicate backward-incompatible changes.
>
> This is not a strict rule. I would like t
On 03/10/2014 06:55 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
What do you think?
I think Python 4.0 will follow Python 3.9. No need to rush things [1].
--
~Ethan~
[1] The Python 2 line ended early because we had a major paradigm shift with moving to Unicode by default. Unless we
experience another major
On Mon Mar 10 2014 at 12:47:21 PM, Chris Barker
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>
>> If Python 4 is a conservative release, I don't see any reason to bump
>> the major version number until after Python 3.9.
>
>
> and why even then?
>
>
>> Perhaps we need a long-
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> If Python 4 is a conservative release, I don't see any reason to bump
> the major version number until after Python 3.9.
and why even then?
> Perhaps we need a long-term schedule?
>
why not:
3.5: August 2015
> 3.6: February 2017
> 3.
On Mon Mar 10 2014 at 12:08:55 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> >> I suggest to wait less than 8 years
> >> for Python 4.
> >
> > Why? What's special about 8 years?
>
> It's the time between Python 2.0 and 3.0.
>
But I'm willing to bet that's going to be an anomaly. Python 3 came into
existence when
>> I suggest to wait less than 8 years
>> for Python 4.
>
> Why? What's special about 8 years?
It's the time between Python 2.0 and 3.0.
Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubsc
> Guido famously hates two digit minor version numbers. :)
This is no problem either. Simply switch to hexadecimal numbering ;)
> Gesendet: Montag, 10. März 2014 um 16:59 Uhr
> Von: "Barry Warsaw"
> An: python-dev@python.org
> Betreff: Re: [Python-Dev] Python 4: don
On Mon Mar 10 2014 at 11:50:54 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> 2014-03-10 16:25 GMT+01:00 Stefan Richthofer :
> > I don't see the point in this discussion.
> > As far as I know, the major version is INTENDED to
> > indicate backward-incompatible changes.
>
> This is not a strict rule. I would like to
On Mar 10, 2014, at 04:25 PM, Stefan Richthofer wrote:
>> I don't see any reason to bump
>> the major version number until after Python 3.9.
>
>Even then, there is no need for 4.0; you can just have 3.10, 3.11 etc.
Guido famously hates two digit minor version numbers. :)
-Barry
On 10/03/2014 13:55, Victor Stinner wrote:
So can we please try to stop scheduling another major Python version
breaking almost all modules and all applications just to be pendantic?
I've missed the announcement about this, can we have a link please?
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what ou
2014-03-10 16:25 GMT+01:00 Stefan Richthofer :
> I don't see the point in this discussion.
> As far as I know, the major version is INTENDED to
> indicate backward-incompatible changes.
This is not a strict rule. I would like to follow Linux 3 which didn't
break the API between Linux 2 and Linux 3
On 2014-03-10 15:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:55:26PM +0100, Victor Stinner wrote:
[...]
So can we please try to stop scheduling another major Python version
breaking almost all modules and all applications just to be pendantic?
No, we should not remove any old feature
, there is no need for 4.0; you can just have 3.10, 3.11 etc.
Cheers
Stefan
> Gesendet: Montag, 10. März 2014 um 16:04 Uhr
> Von: "Steven D'Aprano"
> An: python-dev@python.org
> Betreff: Re: [Python-Dev] Python 4: don't remove anything, don't break
&
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> For example, I propose to release the next major Python version (3.5)
> with the version 4.0 but without removing anything.
People put a lot of weight behind version numbers, often much more
than they should. Jumping to 4.0 would be a PR ni
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:55:26PM +0100, Victor Stinner wrote:
[...]
> So can we please try to stop scheduling another major Python version
> breaking almost all modules and all applications just to be pendantic?
>
> No, we should not remove any old feature in Python 4. Python 4 should
> be just
On Mar 10, 2014, at 02:55 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>So can we please try to stop scheduling another major Python version
>breaking almost all modules and all applications just to be pendantic?
>
>What do you think?
Just that it's crazy to be talking about Python 4 right now. We have at least
9
49 matches
Mail list logo
