[Python-Dev] Re: Implementation of PEP-0604

2019-11-04 Thread Ivan Levkivskyi
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 at 23:20, Nick Coghlan wrote: > [...snip...] > >> >> It's not enough to move the typing classes, I must move >> functools.lru_cache() and dependencies, collections.abs.Mapping and >> dependencies, and track the frame level. >> >> *It's too big for me.* >> >> > It's certainly n

[Python-Dev] Re: A much better tokenize.untokenize function

2019-11-04 Thread Edward K. Ream
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 7:23 PM Edward K. Ream wrote: Clearly, the new code would have to be repackaged if it were to be made > part of tokenize.py. That's all I would like to say now regarding your > comments. Perhaps other devs will pick up the ball. > After sleeping on your comments, I would l

[Python-Dev] Re: A much better tokenize.untokenize function

2019-11-04 Thread Ethan Furman
On 11/04/2019 03:42 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 7:23 PM Edward K. Ream wrote: Let's be clear, there is no reason for python libraries to include every little code gem. However, I have two motivations adding the gem to the tokenize module: This is all irrelevant if you h

[Python-Dev] Re: A much better tokenize.untokenize function

2019-11-04 Thread Edward K. Ream
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:42 AM Edward K. Ream wrote: > ...there are two reasons why adding the gem to tokenize.py might be a good idea. Heh. I myself am not convinced that the gem needs "advertising" in tokenize.py. Those interested in how Leo's token-based commands work would be more likely t

[Python-Dev] Re: A much better tokenize.untokenize function

2019-11-04 Thread Kyle Stanley
> This is all irrelevant if you haven't signed the CLA*. IMO, this shouldn't be an argument against the proposed changes, as the CLA is fairly straightforward and only takes 24-48 hours to process. Unless the OP specifically is unable to or doesn't want to sign the CLA, it won't be a significant c

[Python-Dev] Re: Implementation of PEP-0604

2019-11-04 Thread Kyle Stanley
> I agree with Nick, this is indeed big, but not impossible. If you are not sure yet whether you will work on implementation, you can focus on polishing the PEP text, and then if it is accepted and you will decide to give implementation to someone else, we will find a volunteer. Unless I'm misunde

[Python-Dev] Re: Do not fallback to __trunc__ when convert to int

2019-11-04 Thread Victor Stinner
Le jeu. 31 oct. 2019 à 11:41, Serhiy Storchaka a écrit : > I propose to deprecate the falling back to __trunc__ for converting to > int and remove it in future. As Nick already said, I'm working on PEP 608 "Coordinated Python release" which discuss such change: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep

[Python-Dev] Re: Do not fallback to __trunc__ when convert to int

2019-11-04 Thread Paul G
> Do you have an idea of how many projects would emit such warning? More and more projects are running their test suite using -Werror. Any new warning can make a project test suite to fail. I don't have an opinion on __trunc__, but as someone who runs such a project, I have to say this is exactl