I am getting worried about the Py3k release schedule. According to PEP
3000, "I hope to have a first alpha release out sometime in 2007"
which would seem to give us another year at least; but in my mind I've
always interpreted this (and explained it to others) as "in the first
half of 2007" which w
On 12/18/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am getting worried about the Py3k release schedule.
Hah, only now? I've been worried every time I archive 20-unread-message
conversations in the python-3000 list -- which it feels like I've been doing
every two days for months :)
I'd
On 12/18/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/18/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am getting worried about the Py3k release schedule.
>
> Hah, only now? I've been worried every time I archive 20-unread-message
> conversations in the python-3000 list -- which it
On 12/18/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am getting worried about the Py3k release schedule. According to PEP
3000, "I hope to have a first alpha release out sometime in 2007"
which would seem to give us another year at least; but in my mind I've
always interpreted this (and ex
On 12/18/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I always wondered about that due date and when you really wanted to cut an
> alpha.
Despite what the PEP says I've always *thought* of it as "early 2007"
which I can stretch to June but not much beyond. :-)
> I know the reason I didn't jump i
On 12/18/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, so be it. Let this be a pronouncement -- the only stdlib reorg
we're doing will be (a) deleting silly old stuff; (b) rename modules
that don't conform to the current module/package naming convention,
like StringIO, cPickle or UserDict
I think a reasonable solution here is to make the C version an
optional implementation detail of the Python version, such as was done
for the heapq module already (the C version is _heapq and
automatically imported by heapq.py if it exists). If this requires
that some of the C modules need to be up
On 12/18/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/18/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I always wondered about that due date and when you really wanted to cut
an
> alpha.
Despite what the PEP says I've always *thought* of it as "early 2007"
which I can stretch to June b
On 12/18/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/18/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Ok, so be it. Let this be a pronouncement -- the only stdlib reorg
> we're doing will be (a) deleting silly old stuff; (b) rename modules
> that don't conform to the current mo
Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think another big reason, though, is people are taking the view of
> Py3k really far in terms of it being a clean slate. I have always viewd
> Python 3.0 as Python 2.x cleaned up. That leaves Python 3.whatever for
> new additions. But I think a lot of people have skipp
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Talin wrote:
>
>> Do you have a specific proposal as to how the information about the
>> ordering of definitions could be extracted? I'm assuming that there
>> would be an extra attribute that would return a list of keys in the
>> order that they were defined.
>
> An extra
Thomas Wouters wrote:
> On 12/18/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I can pick up string formatting if no one else does, or help with
> the int/long unification. I should have more than enough time for all of
> those well before PyCon, or at PyCon -- it's not like they're re
Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a symptom, I received very few
> responses to my announcement of a refactoring tool; the ones that I
> got were more of a theoretical nature "maybe look at this alternative
> approach" rather than "how can I help" or "here's a refactoring I
> wrote
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Ok, so be it. Let this be a pronouncement -- the only stdlib reorg
> we're doing will be (a) deleting silly old stuff; (b) rename modules
> that don't conform to the current module/package naming convention,
> like StringIO, cPickle or UserDict.
I feel strongly that
Talin wrote:
> Do you have a specific proposal as to how the information about the
> ordering of definitions could be extracted? I'm assuming that there
> would be an extra attribute that would return a list of keys in the
> order that they were defined.
An extra attribute or method would be o
"Edward C. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > Ok, so be it. Let this be a pronouncement -- the only stdlib reorg
> > we're doing will be (a) deleting silly old stuff; (b) rename modules
> > that don't conform to the current module/package naming convention,
>
On 12/18/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > I think another big reason, though, is people are taking the view of
> > Py3k really far in terms of it being a clean slate. I have always viewd
> > Python 3.0 as Python 2.x cleaned up. That leaves Python 3.whatever for
On 12/18/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Edward C. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, so be it. Let this be a pronouncement -- the only stdlib reorg
> > > we're doing will be (a) deleting silly old stuff; (b) rename modules
> > > th
On 12/18/06, Edward C. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a symptom, I received very few
> > responses to my announcement of a refactoring tool; the ones that I
> > got were more of a theoretical nature "maybe look at this alternative
> > approach
On 12/19/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As for using a lib-old idea, is that for Python 2.x to help transition, or
did you want to do that for Py3K as well? I see the logic in the former to
help transition but in the latter.
Development-transition only. I want to start doing it
20 matches
Mail list logo
