Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Larry Hastings]

As previously requested: please take this discussion to python-ideas.  
If you reply, remove python-dev from the To: and Cc: lists, and add 
python-ideas instead.  This speculative discussion was never appropriate 
for python-dev.



//arry/


On 07/28/2017 03:11 PM, Rob Cliffe wrote:



On 28/07/2017 20:57, MRAB wrote:

On 2017-07-28 10:17, Michel Desmoulin wrote:

elif break and elif None: I'd like that very much. It's weird a break
the semantic of break and None, but it's in such a dark corner of 
Python

anyway I don't bother.


Surely it would not be "elif break", but "elif not break"?
To me, anything beginning with "else" or "elif" suggests an 
alternative branch, not an additional one (YMMV):

if condition:
do_something
else:
do_something_completely_different

Therefore I would find "if not break" or even "and if not break" more 
intuitive.

Best wishes
Rob Cliffe




Le 27/07/2017 à 21:19, MRAB a écrit :

On 2017-07-27 03:34, Mike Miller wrote:



On 2017-07-26 16:36, MRAB wrote:

"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Whenever I've used the for-else, I've put a # no-break right next to
it, to
remind myself as much as anyone else.

for...: not break: is the best alternative I've yet seen, 
congrats. Perhaps in

Python 5 it can be enabled, with for-else: used instead for empty
iterables, as
that's what I expected the first few dozen times.


For empty iterables, how about "elif None:"? :-)

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/rob.cliffe%40btinternet.com



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/larry%40hastings.org


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Rob Cliffe]

On 28/07/2017 20:57, MRAB wrote:

On 2017-07-28 10:17, Michel Desmoulin wrote:

elif break and elif None: I'd like that very much. It's weird a break
the semantic of break and None, but it's in such a dark corner of Python
anyway I don't bother.


Surely it would not be "elif break", but "elif not break"?
To me, anything beginning with "else" or "elif" suggests an alternative 
branch, not an additional one (YMMV):

if condition:
do_something
else:
do_something_completely_different

Therefore I would find "if not break" or even "and if not break" more 
intuitive.

Best wishes
Rob Cliffe




Le 27/07/2017 à 21:19, MRAB a écrit :

On 2017-07-27 03:34, Mike Miller wrote:



On 2017-07-26 16:36, MRAB wrote:

"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Whenever I've used the for-else, I've put a # no-break right next to
it, to
remind myself as much as anyone else.

for...: not break: is the best alternative I've yet seen, congrats. 
Perhaps in

Python 5 it can be enabled, with for-else: used instead for empty
iterables, as
that's what I expected the first few dozen times.


For empty iterables, how about "elif None:"? :-)

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/rob.cliffe%40btinternet.com



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[MRAB]

On 2017-07-28 10:17, Michel Desmoulin wrote:

elif break and elif None: I'd like that very much. It's weird a break
the semantic of break and None, but it's in such a dark corner of Python
anyway I don't bother.


Surely it would not be "elif break", but "elif not break"?


Le 27/07/2017 à 21:19, MRAB a écrit :

On 2017-07-27 03:34, Mike Miller wrote:



On 2017-07-26 16:36, MRAB wrote:

"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Whenever I've used the for-else, I've put a # no-break right next to
it, to
remind myself as much as anyone else.

for...: not break: is the best alternative I've yet seen, congrats. 
Perhaps in

Python 5 it can be enabled, with for-else: used instead for empty
iterables, as
that's what I expected the first few dozen times.


For empty iterables, how about "elif None:"? :-)

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Michel Desmoulin]

elif break and elif None: I'd like that very much. It's weird a break
the semantic of break and None, but it's in such a dark corner of Python
anyway I don't bother.

Le 27/07/2017 à 21:19, MRAB a écrit :
> On 2017-07-27 03:34, Mike Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017-07-26 16:36, MRAB wrote:
>>> "nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.
>>
>> Whenever I've used the for-else, I've put a # no-break right next to
>> it, to
>> remind myself as much as anyone else.
>>
>> for...: not break: is the best alternative I've yet seen, congrats. 
>> Perhaps in
>> Python 5 it can be enabled, with for-else: used instead for empty
>> iterables, as
>> that's what I expected the first few dozen times.
>>
> For empty iterables, how about "elif None:"? :-)
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/desmoulinmichel%40gmail.com
> 
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Eric Lafontaine]

funny ;

this made me think of this talk;
https://youtu.be/OSGv2VnC0go?t=1013


Éric Lafontaine |  Membre du Projet VUE, Groupe Contrôle
Génie électrique, 54ème promotion UdeS | Étudiant en maitrise TI à l'ETS
VAS OPS chez Bell Mobility

« Nous voulons proposer une alternative de transport en présentant un
véhicule électrique spécifiquement conçu pour les déplacements urbains. »

2017-07-27 15:19 GMT-04:00 MRAB :

> On 2017-07-27 03:34, Mike Miller wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-07-26 16:36, MRAB wrote:
>>
>>> "nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.
>>>
>>
>> Whenever I've used the for-else, I've put a # no-break right next to it,
>> to
>> remind myself as much as anyone else.
>>
>> for...: not break: is the best alternative I've yet seen, congrats.
>> Perhaps in
>> Python 5 it can be enabled, with for-else: used instead for empty
>> iterables, as
>> that's what I expected the first few dozen times.
>>
>> For empty iterables, how about "elif None:"? :-)
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/eric.
> lafontaine1%40gmail.com
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[MRAB]

On 2017-07-27 03:34, Mike Miller wrote:



On 2017-07-26 16:36, MRAB wrote:

"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Whenever I've used the for-else, I've put a # no-break right next to it, to
remind myself as much as anyone else.

for...: not break: is the best alternative I've yet seen, congrats.  Perhaps in
Python 5 it can be enabled, with for-else: used instead for empty iterables, as
that's what I expected the first few dozen times.


For empty iterables, how about "elif None:"? :-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Mike Miller]

On 2017-07-26 16:36, MRAB wrote:

"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Whenever I've used the for-else, I've put a # no-break right next to it, to 
remind myself as much as anyone else.


for...: not break: is the best alternative I've yet seen, congrats.  Perhaps in 
Python 5 it can be enabled, with for-else: used instead for empty iterables, as 
that's what I expected the first few dozen times.


-Mike
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Terry Reedy]

This discussion belongs on python-list (where is it mostly a repeat).

--
Terry Jan Reedy

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[MRAB]

On 2017-07-27 01:07, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
On Jul 27, 2017 02:38, "MRAB" > wrote:


On 2017-07-26 23:55, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:


​IMO,

for item in sequence:
 # block
nobreak:   # or perhaps `if not break:`
 # block

would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all).


You couldn't have "if not break:" because that would look like the
start of an 'if' statement.


Do you mean as an implementation issue or for human readability?

I suppose you _could_ use "if not break:", but as 'if' normally 
indicates the start of an 'if' statement, you would get complaints about 
it! :-)


Maybe it would be clearer if it was "elif not break:". :-)


"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Sure :)



___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Koos Zevenhoven]

On Jul 27, 2017 02:38, "MRAB"  wrote:

On 2017-07-26 23:55, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:

>
> ​IMO,
>
> for item in sequence:
>  # block
> nobreak:   # or perhaps `if not break:`
>  # block
>
> would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all).
>

You couldn't have "if not break:" because that would look like the start of
an 'if' statement.


Do you mean as an implementation issue or for human readability?

"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.


Sure :)

-- Koos (mobile)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[MRAB]

On 2017-07-26 23:55, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano >wrote:


Hello Kiuhnm, and welcome.

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:35:03PM +0200, Kiuhnm via Python-Dev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think that the expression "for...else" or "while...else" is completely
> counter-intuitive.


You may be right -- this has been discussed many, many times before. In
my personal opinion, the best (and only accurate!) phrase would have
been:

for item in sequence:
 # block
then:
 # block


​IMO,

for item in sequence:
 # block
nobreak:   # or perhaps `if not break:`
 # block

would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all).


[snip]

You couldn't have "if not break:" because that would look like the start 
of an 'if' statement.


"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Koos Zevenhoven]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano 
wrote:

> Hello Kiuhnm, and welcome.
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:35:03PM +0200, Kiuhnm via Python-Dev wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think that the expression "for...else" or "while...else" is completely
> > counter-intuitive.
>
>
> You may be right -- this has been discussed many, many times before. In
> my personal opinion, the best (and only accurate!) phrase would have
> been:
>
> for item in sequence:
> # block
> then:
> # block
>
>
​IMO,

for item in sequence:
# block
nobreak:   # or perhaps `if not break:`
# block

would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all).


​[...]


> ​
>
> > Wouldn't it be possible to make it clearer? Maybe
> > something like
>
> At this point, no, it is not practical to change the syntax used. Maybe
> when Python 3.0 was first introduced, but that ship has long sailed. It
> is very, very unlikely that the syntax for this will ever change, but if
> it does, it probably won't be until something in the distant future like
> Python 5.
>

​I don't have a strong opinion on this particular case, but if something
like this is changed in Python 5, I think the decision should be made much
earlier (now?) so that the old else syntax could be discouraged (and new
syntax potentially already introduced). The same thing would apply to many
other "possibly in Python 5" changes, where there is no reason to expect
that the situation is somehow different years later.

-- Koos


>
> But not Python 4: Guido has already ruled that Python 4 will not include
> major backwards-incompatible changes. Going from 3 to 4 will not be as
> disruptive as going from 2 to 3.
>
>
​[...]​


-- 
+ Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Rob Cliffe]

On 25/07/2017 06:51, Nick Coghlan wrote:

On 25 July 2017 at 02:23, Ben Hoyt  wrote:

This is more of a python-ideas discussion, and Steven's answer is good.

I'll just add one thing. Maybe it's obvious to others, but I've liked
for...else since I found a kind of mnemonic to help me remember when the
"else" part happens: I think of it not as "for ... else" but as "break ...
else" -- saying it this way makes it clear to me that the break goes with
the else. "If this condition inside the loop is true, break. ... *else* if
we didn't break, do this other thing after the loop."

For folks looking for a more in-depth explanation of the
"if-break-else" approach to thinking about this construct:
http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python_concepts/break_else.html

A helpful explanation.
But that it is necessary at all underlines that (IMHO) this use of 
'else' is unnatural and hard to understand.  I always have to think 
twice about it, whether reading it or using it myself.  Therefore I 
would have preferred a more obvious keyword such as 'ifnobreak' (others 
may think of something better).

But as has been stated, it's not going to change.
Rob Cliffe



That article also has a note explaining that we're unlikely to ever
change this: 
http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python_concepts/break_else.html#but-couldn-t-python-be-different

Cheers,
Nick.



___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Nick Coghlan]

On 25 July 2017 at 02:23, Ben Hoyt  wrote:
> This is more of a python-ideas discussion, and Steven's answer is good.
>
> I'll just add one thing. Maybe it's obvious to others, but I've liked
> for...else since I found a kind of mnemonic to help me remember when the
> "else" part happens: I think of it not as "for ... else" but as "break ...
> else" -- saying it this way makes it clear to me that the break goes with
> the else. "If this condition inside the loop is true, break. ... *else* if
> we didn't break, do this other thing after the loop."

For folks looking for a more in-depth explanation of the
"if-break-else" approach to thinking about this construct:
http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python_concepts/break_else.html

That article also has a note explaining that we're unlikely to ever
change this: 
http://python-notes.curiousefficiency.org/en/latest/python_concepts/break_else.html#but-couldn-t-python-be-different

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncogh...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Isaac Morland]

The way I remember it is to observe that the following are *almost* exactly
the same thing:

if C:
T
else:
E

while C:
T
else:
E

The *only* differences are:

1) where execution jumps if it reaches the end of the T: in the "while", it
jumps back to the while itself, resulting in the condition being rechecked,
whereas in the "if" execution skips over the "else" to whatever follows; and

2) in the "while", inside the T "break" and "continue" relate to this
control structure rather than to a containing loop.

(At least I don't think I'm missing any other differences!)

Seen this way, the meaning of the "else" is easy to understand and to
remember.

And the for loop else is like the while loop else.


On 24 July 2017 at 11:35, Kiuhnm via Python-Dev 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I think that the expression "for...else" or "while...else" is completely
> counter-intuitive. Wouldn't it be possible to make it clearer? Maybe
> something like
>
> break in for i in range(n):
>   ...
>   if cond:
> break
> else:
>   ...
>
> I'm not an English native speaker so I don't know whether "break in" is
> acceptable English in this context or can only mean "to get into a building
> by force".
>
> Kiuhnm
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/isaac.
> morland%40gmail.com
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Ben Hoyt  wrote:
> .. I found a kind of mnemonic to help me remember when the
> "else" part happens: I think of it not as "for ... else" but as "break ...
> else" -- saying it this way makes it clear to me that the break goes with
> the else. "If this condition inside the loop is true, break. ... *else* if
> we didn't break, do this other thing after the loop."

Note that since break itself is typically guarded by an "if" as in

for i in x:
...
if cond(i):
break
...
else:
...

you can match the "else" above to the "if" inside the loop.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Ben Hoyt]

This is more of a python-ideas discussion, and Steven's answer is good.

I'll just add one thing. Maybe it's obvious to others, but I've liked
for...else since I found a kind of mnemonic to help me remember when the
"else" part happens: I think of it not as "for ... else" but as "break ...
else" -- saying it this way makes it clear to me that the break goes with
the else. "If this condition inside the loop is true, break. ... *else* if
we didn't break, do this other thing after the loop."

-Ben

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano 
wrote:

> Hello Kiuhnm, and welcome.
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:35:03PM +0200, Kiuhnm via Python-Dev wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think that the expression "for...else" or "while...else" is completely
> > counter-intuitive.
>
>
> You may be right -- this has been discussed many, many times before. In
> my personal opinion, the best (and only accurate!) phrase would have
> been:
>
> for item in sequence:
> # block
> then:
> # block
>
> If you look at the byte-code generated by a for...else statement, you
> see that the "else" block is unconditionally executed after the for loop
> completes, unless something causes a jump outside of the entire
> statement: return, break, or raise. So it is more like:
>
> - run the loop;
> - *then* run the following block
>
> rather than:
>
> - run the loop;
> - otherwise ("else") run the following block.
>
> Others disagree and would prefer other keywords. But regardless,
> backwards compatibility means that we must keep "for...else", so I'm
> afraid that discussing alternatives is *almost certainly* a waste of
> time.
>
>
> > Wouldn't it be possible to make it clearer? Maybe
> > something like
>
> At this point, no, it is not practical to change the syntax used. Maybe
> when Python 3.0 was first introduced, but that ship has long sailed. It
> is very, very unlikely that the syntax for this will ever change, but if
> it does, it probably won't be until something in the distant future like
> Python 5.
>
> But not Python 4: Guido has already ruled that Python 4 will not include
> major backwards-incompatible changes. Going from 3 to 4 will not be as
> disruptive as going from 2 to 3.
>
> So depending on how you look at it: discussing alternative syntax to
> for...else is either ten years too late or ten years too early.
>
>
>
> --
> Steve
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/
> benhoyt%40gmail.com
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] for...else

[Steven D'Aprano]

Hello Kiuhnm, and welcome.

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:35:03PM +0200, Kiuhnm via Python-Dev wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I think that the expression "for...else" or "while...else" is completely 
> counter-intuitive.


You may be right -- this has been discussed many, many times before. In 
my personal opinion, the best (and only accurate!) phrase would have 
been:

for item in sequence:
# block
then:
# block

If you look at the byte-code generated by a for...else statement, you 
see that the "else" block is unconditionally executed after the for loop 
completes, unless something causes a jump outside of the entire 
statement: return, break, or raise. So it is more like:

- run the loop;
- *then* run the following block

rather than:

- run the loop;
- otherwise ("else") run the following block.

Others disagree and would prefer other keywords. But regardless, 
backwards compatibility means that we must keep "for...else", so I'm 
afraid that discussing alternatives is *almost certainly* a waste of 
time.


> Wouldn't it be possible to make it clearer? Maybe 
> something like

At this point, no, it is not practical to change the syntax used. Maybe 
when Python 3.0 was first introduced, but that ship has long sailed. It 
is very, very unlikely that the syntax for this will ever change, but if 
it does, it probably won't be until something in the distant future like 
Python 5.

But not Python 4: Guido has already ruled that Python 4 will not include 
major backwards-incompatible changes. Going from 3 to 4 will not be as 
disruptive as going from 2 to 3.

So depending on how you look at it: discussing alternative syntax to 
for...else is either ten years too late or ten years too early.



-- 
Steve
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Python-Dev] for...else

[Kiuhnm via Python-Dev]

Hello,

I think that the expression "for...else" or "while...else" is completely 
counter-intuitive. Wouldn't it be possible to make it clearer? Maybe 
something like


break in for i in range(n):
  ...
  if cond:
break
else:
  ...

I'm not an English native speaker so I don't know whether "break in" is 
acceptable English in this context or can only mean "to get into a 
building by force".


Kiuhnm
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com