Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 8 April 2014 18:32, cjw wrote: > Guido, > > I am sorry to read this. > > I shall be responding more completely in a day or two. > > In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant. Both operations are already > provided, * and **, in numpy.matrix. > > PEP 465 provides no clear indication as to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 2014-04-09 12:12, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 8 April 2014 18:32, cjw wrote: Guido, I am sorry to read this. I shall be responding more completely in a day or two. In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant. Both operations are already provided, * and **, in numpy.matrix. PEP 465 provide

Re: [Python-Dev] issue with itertools leads the crash

On 08/04/2014 17:30, MRAB wrote: On 2014-04-08 16:31, Brett Cannon wrote: Something for Python 3.5, maybe? :-) It's not going to happen in Python 2.7; that's the end of the Python 2 series, and it's getting security fixes only. According to http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/ the fina

[Python-Dev] A Friendly IDLE

Greeting Everyone. First of all I want to introduce my self Adnan Umer as a student of bachelors in Information Technology. I’ve few suggestions on improving IDLE. Here are few: On windows we can open any python file from context menu because IDLE is not a application. I recommends to create a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 9 Apr 2014 12:34, "Robert Kern" wrote: > > On 2014-04-09 12:12, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> On 8 April 2014 18:32, cjw wrote: >>> >>> Guido, >>> >>> I am sorry to read this. >>> >>> I shall be responding more completely in a day or two. >>> >>> In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant. Bot

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

2014-04-08 14:52 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith : > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Björn Lindqvist wrote: >> 2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith : >>> So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome: >>> http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/ >> >> Couldn't you

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 4/8/2014 6:32 PM, cjw wrote: Larry Hastings wasn't far from the truth. Larry's note was about adding (redundant) *NON-ascii* unicode symbols, in particular × == \xd7, as in A × B, as a synonym for '@'. Various people hav

Re: [Python-Dev] A Friendly IDLE

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014, at 21:25, adnanume...@gmail.com wrote: > Greeting Everyone. First of all I want to introduce my self Adnan Umer as > a student of bachelors in Information Technology. > > > I’ve few suggestions on improving IDLE. Here are few: > > On windows we can open any python file from

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Björn Lindqvist wrote: > 2014-04-08 14:52 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith : >> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Björn Lindqvist wrote: >>> 2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith : So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome: h

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

Guido, I am sorry to read this. I shall be responding more completely in a day or two. In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant.  Both operations are  already provided, * and **, in numpy.matrix. PEP 465 provides no clear indication as to how

Re: [Python-Dev] issue with itertools leads the crash

On 2014-04-09 14:26, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 08/04/2014 17:30, MRAB wrote: On 2014-04-08 16:31, Brett Cannon wrote: Something for Python 3.5, maybe? :-) It's not going to happen in Python 2.7; that's the end of the Python 2 series, and it's getting security fixes only. According to http://le

Re: [Python-Dev] issue with itertools leads the crash

2015!?!? I was hoping it was a tad further off...the PyPy team is going to have to start freaking out in about 12 months. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 08/04/2014 17:30, MRAB wrote: > >> On 2014-04-08 16:31, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> Something for Python 3.5, maybe? :

Re: [Python-Dev] issue with itertools leads the crash

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:53 PM, MRAB wrote: > On 2014-04-09 14:26, Mark Lawrence wrote: >> >> On 08/04/2014 17:30, MRAB wrote: >>> >>> On 2014-04-08 16:31, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> >>> Something for Python 3.5, maybe? :-) >>> >>> It's not going to happen in Python 2.7; that's the end of the Python

Re: [Python-Dev] A Friendly IDLE

On 4/9/2014 12:25 AM, adnanume...@gmail.com wrote: Greeting Everyone. First of all I want to introduce my self Adnan Umer as a student of bachelors in Information Technology. I’ve few suggestions on improving IDLE. Here are few: Python-list, python-ideas, or idle-dev lists might have been bett

Re: [Python-Dev] issue with itertools leads the crash

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 02:40:21PM -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Of course, this raises the question of whether making slice assignment > not go into an infinite loop when the programmer asks it to is a > bugfix or a new feature. Definitely a new feature. > Calling: > > list(itertools.cycl

[Python-Dev] Language Summit notes

To anyone who took notes at the language summit at PyCon today, even if you took them just for yourself, would you mind posting them here? It would be good to have some kind of (informal!) as soon as possible, before we collectively forget. You won't be held responsible for correctness. Here are s

[Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

This email is to share idea that has been bouncing around in my head for a while about 2.7 releases. Guido's last email containing notes from the language summit made me think it's time to propose it. We'll keep doing what we're currently doing for another year, making normal bug fix releases with

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > This email is to share idea that has been bouncing around in my head for > a while about 2.7 releases. Guido's last email containing notes from the > language summit ma

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit. He implied that it's currently the plan or that it should be the plan? ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours, Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc, or does that violate other policies? What will a lack of provided installers do to Windows support? It's easy enough on Linux to sa

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > Instead dealing 2.7 will just be completely optional for core > developers. (The much anticipated vendor support arrives at this point.) > Could you clarify your thoughts a bit on the "completely optional" part. What if vendors take a rea

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson > wrote: > > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours, > > Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc, or does that violate other > policies? I'm not aware that two digit

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:46, Senthil Kumaran wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson > wrote: > > > Instead dealing 2.7 will just be completely optional for core > > developers. (The much anticipated vendor support arrives at this point.) > > > > Could you clarify your thoug

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit. > > He implied that it's currently the plan or that it should be the plan? > As you might understand, we c

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > I consider the security enhancement/feature question to be in the domain > of PEP 466. If security stuff lands in the 2.7 branch, it will get > released eventually is all I'm saying. > Thanks for the response. >> Instead dealing 2.7 wil

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit. > > He implied that it's currently the plan or that it should be the plan? > As you might understand, we c

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 19:09, Senthil Kumaran wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson > >> Instead dealing 2.7 will just be completely optional for core developers > > I was worried about this part, that if bug-fixes are > optionally back-ported, then we may end up a inconsi

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson > > > wrote: > > > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours, > > > > Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson > > > wrote: > > > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours, > > > > Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc

Re: [Python-Dev] Language Summit notes

Here are my notes that I jotted down from the back row. Forgive me for any mistakes. (As I shared in the intro, I am trying to get back and keep up. :)) Python Release Process: * Larry Hastings goes for vote for shortend release process. But Guido does not seem to be excited about it. Woul

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

In article , Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > It's not that I don't think Windows installers are important, but rather > > that Martin has indicated he is (completely reasonably) not interested > > in indefinitely making 2.7 installers. > Y

Re: [Python-Dev] death to 2.7; long live 2.7

On 9 Apr 2014 22:11, "Guido van Rossum" wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit. >> >> He implied that it's currently the plan or

[Python-Dev] Language Summit notes

Guido van Rossum writes: > - We should make an effort to publicize that we're NOT sunsetting > Python 2.7 just yet; Maybe just add "Windows XP" to the SEO keywords for that page? Like *today* would be perfect timing. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Pyth

Re: [Python-Dev] Language Summit notes

On Apr 9, 2014, at 10:30 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote: > Mentioned about https://pypi-preview.a.ssl.fastly.net/ For what it’s worth, https://warehouse.python.org/ is a somewhat easier to remember demo url for that :] - Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356