[Python-Dev] PEP 487: Simpler customization of class creation

Hi list, just recently, I posted about the implementation of PEP 487. The discussion quickly diverted to PEP 520, which happened to be strongly related. Hoping to get some comments about the rest of PEP 487, I took out the part that is also in PEP 520. I attached the new version of the PEP. The i

[Python-Dev] Here's what's going into 3.5.2 final and 3.4.5 final

Heads up! This is a courtesy reminder from your friendly 3.4 and 3.5 release manager. Here's a list of all the changes since 3.5.2rc1 that are currently going into 3.5.2 final: * 155e665428c6 - Zachary: OpenSSL 1.0.2h build changes for Windows * cae0b7ffeb9f - Benjamin: fix % in Doc/what

[Python-Dev] unittest.TestResult lacks API to separate subtests

Hello, We're developing Python IDE and integrated it with unittest module using TestResult inheritor to track test start, end etc. With Py3K, it supports addSubTest method, that is called after all subtests. But there is no

[Python-Dev] Summary of Python tracker Issues

ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2016-06-17 - 2016-06-24) Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/ To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue. Do NOT respond to this message. Issues counts and deltas: open5531 (-13) closed 33609 (+52) total 39140 (+39) Open issues wit

Re: [Python-Dev] Idea: more compact, interned string key only dict for namespace.

Hi, all. I implemented my new idea. (still wip) https://github.com/methane/cpython/pull/3/files Memory usage when building Python doc with sphinx are: 1) master (shared key) 176MB 2) compact (w/ shared key) 158MB 3) compact (w/o shared key) 166MB 4) compact & interned (new) 160MB Memory usag

Re: [Python-Dev] unittest.TestResult lacks API to separate subtests

Hi Ilya, That sounds like a fine idea. Can you submit a patch to our bug tracker? bugs.python.org. You'll need to fill out a contributor form as well ( https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/) --Guido On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Ilya Kazakevich < ilya.kazakev...@jetbrains.com> wrot

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 487: Simpler customization of class creation

On 24 June 2016 at 00:41, Martin Teichmann wrote: > Hi list, > > just recently, I posted about the implementation of PEP 487. The > discussion quickly diverted to PEP 520, which happened to be > strongly related. > > Hoping to get some comments about the rest of PEP 487, I took > out the part that

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

- 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

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 487: Simpler customization of class creation

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Honestly though, I'm not sure this additional user-visible complexity > is worth it - "The default type metaclass has this new behaviour" is a > lot easier to document and explain than "We added a new opt-in > alternate metaclass that you can

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP XXX: Compact ordered dict

There are a number of ways to make it work (mostly). However, I'll defer to Raymond on how strictly OrderedDict should "subclass" from dict. -eric On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:26 AM, INADA Naoki wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Eric Snow > wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:02 PM, IN

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

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

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 487: Simpler customization of class creation

I think in any case Type is a bad name, since we now have typing.Type (and it is completely different) I could imagine a lot of confusion. -- Ivan On 25 June 2016 at 00:17, Eric Snow wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Honestly though, I'm not sure this addition

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

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)

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)

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__()