[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Change by Ethan Furman : -- assignee: -> ethan.furman ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

amirjn added the comment: Thank you Inda Naoki. It just worked for me in https://www.blogs.va.gov/ and https://aralens.ir -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Change by Ned Deily : -- versions: +Python 3.8 -Python 3.7 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

INADA Naoki added the comment: Hmm, can you read this instead? https://github.com/python/devguide/blob/master/communication.rst -- ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

amirjn added the comment: We got same problem at https://www.blogs.va.gov/ can any one help? -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

amirjn added the comment: i didnt find anything at http://devguide.python.org/communication/ -- nosy: +amirjn ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

INADA Naoki added the comment: ML meant mailing list. There is guide for it. http://devguide.python.org/communication/ If you really want this new API, you can search previous discussion and post new mail with summary of the previous discussion. --

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: INADA, what is ML? How do I restart the discussion? -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

INADA Naoki added the comment: PEP should be accepted before review and merge. So what you can do is restart discussion on ML again. -- nosy: +inada.naoki ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: What else needs to be done with this issue? Can someone merge my pull request? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I don't think these changes should be merged. For bytes.zeros(N), you can use b'\0' * N. For iterbytes() methods, I think that the general function which works with any sequence that support slicing would be more useful.

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: Can someone here merge my pull request? If not, then what else needs to be done for my change to be included in 3.7? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Changes by Elias Zamaria : -- pull_requests: +3279 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Martin Panter added the comment: For arbitrary C-contiguous buffers aka “bytes-like objects” (which are not just arrays of bytes), I think this trick relies on Issue 15944, which is only added in 3.5+. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Even in 3.3+. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Something else the PEP needs to be updated to cover is that in 3.5+ (and maybe even in 3.4 - I'm not sure when 'c' support landed in memoryview) you can write the following efficient bytes iterator: def iterbytes(data): return

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Changes by Andreas Gnau : -- nosy: +Rondom ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Just what Ethan noted above, and the fact that Ethan should also list himself as a co-author now :) That said, one major alternative it would be good to consider further between now and 3.7 is Serhiy's "seqtools" idea:

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Ned Deily added the comment: I agree with Ethan that the PEP needs to be accepted first and afterwards, unless there is a very strong case made quickly, it would not qualify for a late-feature exemption for 360b2. Nick, any updates on the status of PEP 467? -- nosy: +ncoghlan,

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: Ethan, by "Ned", I am guessing that you are referring to Ned Batchelder. Is that right? If so, do we need to put him on the nosy list or do anything else to bring this to his attention? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Ethan Furman added the comment: The PEP 467 has not been accepted yet, so nothing is final. The email thread is the current discussion. Also, unless someone has received permission from Ned, this won't go in until Python 3.7. -- ___ Python

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: I looked through the email thread. I can remove the DeprecationWarnings, but before I do that, I would like to ask something: How "official" are the things discussed in the thread? Are they supposed to be part of the PEP? Are they supposed to be final,

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: Martin, I made another attempt to understand what you are trying to tell me about the patch, and I'm still confused. It seems that to make the patch merge cleanly, I need to get the patch URL from this page, and to get the patch URL, I need to upload the

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Martin Panter added the comment: Elias, the patch URL is where I downloaded your patch from; see the list of patches at the top of this bug: hg import --no-commit https://bugs.python.org/file44316/pep467.patch Anyway in this email

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: Martin, where am I supposed to get the patch URL from? Also, is it too soon to issue DeprecationWarnings? Would it be more appropriate if they are PendingDeprecationWarnings instead? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Martin Panter added the comment: Sorry Elias for not explaining my commands. xclip was just my way of pasting the patch URL from the clipboard (that I copied from Firefox). It is not clear if we are actually making a DeprecationWarning, or going down the road of changing all the stdlib. But

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: Here is a patch with all of my latest changes, including the changes that Martin suggested for the tests. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file44332/pep467_attempt2.patch ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Ethan Furman added the comment: Two things to note: - there is no need to change the stdlib to use anything besides the default constructor -- it's not going away, and it already works (my apologies if I misunderstood) - PEP 467 has not yet been accepted (unless I missed that?) However,

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I'm not convinced that the zeros() method is needed. Zero-initialized sequences can be created via sequence repetition. Sorry, but arguments against this sound like "we made bad design decision in the past, let repeat it with new name" to me. In any case

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: I tried running `hg import --no-commit "$(xclip -o)"` and got the following result: bash: xclip: command not found abort: need at least one patch to import I am using OS X 10.11.6 and Mercurial 3.8.2. I did a bit of quick research on xclip, but it looks like

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Martin Panter added the comment: Thanks for the patches. I left you some comments in the code review. I expect there would be more bits of the docs that need fixing. Doc/library/functions.rst definitely; the tutorial is worth checking too. There may also be example code floating around using

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Changes by Martin Panter : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file44317/pep467_doc_changes.patch ___ Python tracker ___

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Martin Panter added the comment: Here is what I did. (You could probably do this yourself, but never mind :) hg pull -r{default,2.7,3.5} hg update default # Update to the latest public revision hg import --no-commit "$(xclip -o)" # Apply your patch on top hg diff -p > pep467.patch # Make a

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: @martin.panter, I am familiar with Mercurial, and with the concept of rebasing, but I don't understand what you are trying to tell me. I made these changes in several local branches, and then merged them all together in one branch. How can I rebase it onto a

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Martin Panter added the comment: FYI if you rebase your patches onto public Mercurial revisions, they should get a review link -- nosy: +martin.panter stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Elias Zamaria added the comment: Here is a patch with some changes to the docs. I don't know if the descriptions are good enough, but it should hopefully identify what parts of the docs need to be changed. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file44313/pep467_doc_changes.patch

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

Changes by Ethan Furman : -- nosy: +ethan.furman ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue27923] PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences

New submission from Elias Zamaria: This is my attempt at implementing PEP 467. I am not an expert in the details of the Python interpreter, and this is my first time working on a big project in C, so I am not sure if I am doing things in the most elegant or efficient way, but it seems to work