Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

Vinay Sajip wrote: > Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes: > >> I'm starting to think that a converter between the two format >> mini-languages may be the way to go though. >> >> fmt_braces is meant to provide a superset of the capabilites of >> fmt_percent, so a forward converter shouldn't be too hard

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

Raymond Hettinger rcn.com> writes: > We should get one written. ISTM, every %-formatting > string is directly translatable to an equivalent {}-formatting string. I'm not sure you can always get equivalent output from the formatting, though. For example: >>> "%0#8x" % 0x1234 '0x001234' >>> "{0:0

[Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is a good idea: no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an egg (jensens, 2009-10-05, 0 points) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

2009/10/5 Vinay Sajip : > Raymond Hettinger rcn.com> writes: >> We should get one written.  ISTM, every %-formatting >> string is directly translatable to an equivalent {}-formatting string. > > I'm not sure you can always get equivalent output from the formatting, though. > For example: > "%

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

Vinay Sajip wrote: Raymond Hettinger rcn.com> writes: We should get one written. ISTM, every %-formatting string is directly translatable to an equivalent {}-formatting string. I'm not sure you can always get equivalent output from the formatting, though. For example: "%0#8x" % 0x1234 '0x

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Fredrik Lundh writes: > it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is > a good idea: > >no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an egg > (jensens, 2009-10-05, 0 points) Heh. If harsh, uninformed responses make you wonder whether it's worth doing free

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

MRAB mrabarnett.plus.com> writes: > >>> "{0:#08x}".format(0x1234) > '0x001234' Good call, but here's another case: >>> "%#o" % 0x1234 '011064' I don't see how to automatically convert the "%#o" spec, though of course there are ways of fudging it. The obvious conversion doesn't give the same v

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:43:22AM +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is > a good idea: >no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an egg > (jensens, 2009-10-05, 0 points) > Greetings effbot. :) As you might already

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Oh, it was just yet another Zope developer behaving like an ass. Why am I not surprised? On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > it's reviews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is > a good idea: > >   no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

Martin v. Löwis wrote: > That doesn't mean we have to have a transition plan *now*. Creating one > after Python 3.5 is released (i.e. in 2015 or so) might be sufficient. > > To create a transition plan, you first need *consensus* that you > actually do want to transition. I don't think such consen

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Oh, it was just yet another Zope developer behaving like an ass.  Why > am I not surprised? Actually, most of us Zope developers prefer sdist packages, not eggs. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. "Chaos is the score upon which reality is

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Oh, it was just yet another Zope developer behaving like an ass. Why > am I not surprised? Tarring an entire community for the actions of one twit is more than a little unfair. It's fine that you don't like eggs and it's fine that you don't want to provide them. There's a

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Oh, it was just yet another Zope developer behaving like an ass. Why > am I not surprised? > > > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote: >> it's reviews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is >> a good idea: >> >> no egg - worst seen

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

He's not the first one from the Zope community (whatever that is) that's behaved this way on this specific topic. The problem here is that a certain (marginal) user community decides to standardize on a certain distribution model, and then goes off attacking people who've released stuff *before* t

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Am Montag, den 05.10.2009, 13:07 +0200 schrieb Christian Heimes: > Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > Oh, it was just yet another Zope developer behaving like an ass. Why > > am I not surprised? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Fredrik Lundh > > wrote: > >> it's reviews like this that m

[Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

There has been some discussion on the distutils-sig list over the past few days about a change to distutils released with 2.6.3 which inadvertently causes a number (all?) packages with C extensions that use setuptools/easy_install to fail during builds/installs with a rather cryptic error messa

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Ned Deily wrote: > Assuming that distutils is not changed in a forthcoming 2.6.4 Since the changes made in Distutils were bug fixes that kept all public API backward compatible, I don't see why this should be changed. Setuptools development has been discontinued f

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> I'm not proposing to debate the merits of all of the options here. >> However, if a 2.6.4 release is to be pushed out quickly for other >> reasons, a one-time window of opportunity would be available and it >> would be prudent to at least consider the possibility of a distuti

Re: [Python-Dev] [New-bugs-announce] [issue7064] Python 2.6.3 / setuptools 0.6c9: extension module builds fail with KeyError

Ned> Due to a change in distutils released with Python 2.6.3, packages Ned> that use setuptools (version 0.6c9, as of this writing), or the Ned> easy_install command, to build C extension modules fail ... ... Ned> Among the packages known to be affected include lxml, Ned> z

Re: [Python-Dev] [New-bugs-announce] [issue7064] Python 2.6.3 / setuptools 0.6c9: extension module builds fail with KeyError

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:50 PM, wrote: > >    Ned> Due to a change in distutils released with Python 2.6.3, packages >    Ned> that use setuptools (version 0.6c9, as of this writing), or the >    Ned> easy_install command, to build C extension modules fail ... >    ... >    Ned> Among the package

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is > a good idea: > >   no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an egg > (jensens, 2009-10-05, 0 points) > > Unfortunately; we're now staring down the barre

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Oct 5, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: I'm not proposing to debate the merits of all of the options here. However, if a 2.6.4 release is to be pushed out quickly for other reasons, a one-time window of opportunity would be available and it would be prudent to at least consider the possi

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Jens W. Klein wrote: > Am Montag, den 05.10.2009, 13:07 +0200 schrieb Christian Heimes: >> Fredrik Lundh wrote: >> > >> > Oh, it was just yet another Zope developer behaving like an ass.  Why >> > am I not surprised? >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Fredri

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 5, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > >>> I'm not proposing to debate the merits of all of the options here. >>> However, if a 2.6.4 release is to be pushed out quickly for other >>> reasons,  a one-time window of opportunity would b

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Tarek Ziadé wrote: > Now I am astonished that we are talking about reverting changes in > Distutils that were done for bugfixes, for a third party package that > does monkey > patches on Distutils. > > If this choice wins here, it means that setuptools and the stdlib are > tied together, and that

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: If setuptools can be made to work with Python 2.6.3 /and/ earlier versions of Python 2.6.x, then it should be patched and an update released. If not, then perhaps we should revert the change in a quick Python 2.6.4. It's technically possible

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> Now I am astonished that we are talking about reverting changes in >> Distutils that were done for bugfixes, for a third party package that >> does monkey >> patches on Distutils. >> >> If this choice wins here, it means that setuptools and the stdlib ar

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Tarek> That's why we have forked and created Distribute, to provide bug Tarek> fixes. I suspect you might need to publicize this a bit better. The first I heard of Distribute or non-responsiveness of PJE regarding setuptools was this thread. (I don't read comp.lang.python anymore. I do

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > If, as I hope, the answer to that is "yes", then I strongly support > releasing a fixed setuptools instead of reverting the change to Python. > How do your propose to get the author of setuptools to release a new version? -- Daniel Stutzbach

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > >>> If setuptools can be made to work with Python 2.6.3 /and/ earlier >>> versions >>> of Python 2.6.x, then it should be patched and an update released.  If >>> not, >>> then perhaps we should

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> Now I am astonished that we are talking about reverting changes in >> Distutils that were done for bugfixes, for a third party package that >> does monkey >> patches on Distutils. >> >> If this choice wins here, it means

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:40 PM, wrote: > >    Tarek> That's why we have forked and created Distribute, to provide bug >    Tarek> fixes. > > I suspect you might need to publicize this a bit better.  The first I heard > of Distribute or non-responsiveness of PJE regarding setuptools was this > thr

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Senthil Kumaran wrote: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:43:22AM +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote: >> it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is >> a good idea: >>no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an egg >> (jensens, 2009-10-05, 0 points) >> > > Greeting

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Tarek Ziadé wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> Tarek Ziadé wrote: >>> Now I am astonished that we are talking about reverting changes in >>> Distutils that were done for bugfixes, for a third party package that >>> does monkey >>> patches on Distutils. >>> >>> If this

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

\>> I hate calling methods on string literals, I think it looks very odd >> to have code like this: >> >>   "Displaying {0} of {1} revisions".format(x, y) > > Ugh!  Good point. This objection was made years ago when we introduced "separator".join(list_of_things), and I don't think ignoring it has

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:26 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >>> Tarek Ziadé wrote: Now I am astonished that we are talking about reverting changes in Distutils that were done for bugfixes, for a third party package th

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: If, as I hope, the answer to that is "yes", then I strongly support releasing a fixed setuptools instead of reverting the change to Python. Yes it does. Excellent, thanks. The fix makes sure build_ext.get_ext_filename still works as it is

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Daniel Stutzbach wrote: On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: If, as I hope, the answer to that is "yes", then I strongly support releasing a fixed setuptools instead of reverting the change to Python. How do your propose to get the author of set

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Jesse Noller schrieb: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote: >> it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is >> a good idea: >> >> no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an egg >> (jensens, 2009-10-05, 0 points) >> >> > > Unfortunatel

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

-On [20091005 17:45], Barry Warsaw (ba...@python.org) wrote: >2) PJE releases a new version of setuptools that fixes this problem. Will all due respect to PJE, but I sincerely doubt this will happen. There's still a bunch of outstanding patches over at the setuptools tracker, including

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Tarek> No you didn't miss it. That's probably my fault because the only Tarek> places I publicize about it are my blog (indexed in planet Tarek> python) and the distutils-SIG. Bloggers beware!!! Not everyone reads blogs. (I don't unless someone calls my attention to something of par

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Hello, > Now I am astonished that we are talking about reverting changes in > Distutils that were done for bugfixes, for a third party package that > does monkey > patches on Distutils. I think we should avoid any questions of responsability here (besides, it is quite clear that you, Tarek, are n

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > The only question is, given that 2.6.x is supposed to be a bug-fix branch, do > we > want to fix that incompatibility with a widely deployed existing piece of > software? Whether or not the incompatibility is legitimate (i.e., whether > se

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Tarek Ziadé writes: > Maybe I should blog a summary of the situation and post it to > python annoucement as well. Please don't. It's unlikely to do anything except incite a lot of flames. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Tarek Ziadé wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> The only question is, given that 2.6.x is supposed to be a bug-fix branch, >> do we >> want to fix that incompatibility with a widely deployed existing piece of >> software? Whether or not the incompatibility is legi

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:06 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>> >>> The only question is, given that 2.6.x is supposed to be a bug-fix branch, >>> do we >>> want to fix that incompatibility with a widely deployed existing pie

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: > Jesse Noller schrieb: >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote: >>> it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is >>> a good idea: >>> >>>   no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an eg

Re: [Python-Dev] please consider changing --enable-unicode default to ucs4

Dne 20.9.2009 18:42, Antoine Pitrou napsal(a): > Le Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:33:23 -0600, Zooko O'Whielacronx a écrit : >> >> By the way, I was investigating this, and discovered an issue on the >> Mandriva tracker which suggests that they intend to switch to UCS4 in >> the next release in order to av

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: >> Jesse Noller schrieb: >>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Fredrik Lundh >>> wrote: it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is a good idea: >>

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > User ratings and comments are the > future for "app store" style sites such as PyPI Interestingly, I consider sites like PyPI as developer resources rather than the more end-user-centric "App Store" sites. While I don't consider it bad to

[Python-Dev] % to .format() converter

Interested in the recent threads about % and str.format(), I wrote a little Python 3 script that converts % format strings to format strings compatible with str.format(). I invite you to try it out. The code is at https://code.launchpad.net/~gutworth/+junk/mod2format (That means you can do "bzr bra

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Oct 5, 2009, at 4:59 AM, Ben Finney wrote: Fredrik Lundh writes: it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is a good idea: no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an egg (jensens, 2009-10-05, 0 points) Heh. If harsh, uninformed responses m

Re: [Python-Dev] please consider changing --enable-unicode default to ucs4

Le lundi 05 octobre 2009 à 19:18 +0200, Jan Matejek a écrit : > > I > don't see what is bad about improving compatibility in a place where the > setting doesn't hurt one way or the other. I can't speak for Mandriva, but I'm sure they care more about not breaking user installs when they upgrade to

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: >>> Jesse Noller schrieb: On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > it's revews like this that makes

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Guido van Rossum python.org> writes: > > There are plenty of things we > can learn about fighting spam and other forms of vandalism from other > areas of the social web, including our very own wiki, and other wikis > (WikiPedia survives despite spam). Doesn't Wikipedia have a lot of human eyes w

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> [...] >> >> User ratings and comments are the >> future for "app store" style sites such as PyPI, and spam >> unfortunately comes with the terrain. There are plenty of things we >> can

[Python-Dev] "PIL" vs. "Imaging" (was Re: eggs now mandatory for pypi?)

At 01:26 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Jens W. Klein wrote: And as far as I understand PIL is not the problem, but the packaging/ setuptools. For the records: PIL is a great piece of software and I dont want to miss it. Actually, the problem is that the package is called "PIL" in Pypi, but the actual in

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

At 02:22 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: Setuptools development has been discontinued for a year, and does patches on Distutils code. Some of these patches are sensitive to any change made on Distutils, wether those changes are internal or not. Setuptools is also not the only thing out

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

At 04:17 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: Now I am astonished that we are talking about reverting changes in Distutils that were done for bugfixes, for a third party package that does monkey patches on Distutils. Subclassing is not monkeypatching, so if you consider the above to be a gen

Re: [Python-Dev] "PIL" vs. "Imaging" (was Re: eggs now mandatory for pypi?)

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 8:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: > names for the same thing.  (I'm guessing that PIL was registered on PyPI > manually, before the "setup.py register" command existed.  Heck, it was > probably being distributed before the distutils even existed, and indeed > before there were such

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 08:44, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > > If, as I hope, the answer to that is "yes", then I strongly support >>> releasing a fixed setuptools instead of reverting the change to Python. >>> >> >> Yes it does. >> > > Excellent, thanks.

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Brett Cannon wrote: On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 08:44, Barry Warsaw > wrote: On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: If, as I hope, the answer to that is "yes", then I strongly support releasing a fixed setuptools instead of

Re: [Python-Dev] summary of transitioning from % to {} formatting

On Oct 4, 2009, at 4:11 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Barry Warsaw wrote: I also don't think this is a case of anti-TOOWTDI. For most situations {}-strings are great (IMO), but in the specific translation domain, I suspect $-strings are still better. I agree that keeping string.Template around i

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

At 11:21 AM 10/5/2009 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: I have to admit I find it really disheartening that we are letting an unmaintained project dictate how we fix a bug. Setuptools was not the only project broken by this change. See: http://bugs.python.org/issue7020#msg93355 Apparently, I'm no

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

At 08:22 PM 10/5/2009 +0100, Michael Foord wrote: I'm intrigued as to whether setuptools does monkey patch distutils or subclass though, they are fundamentally different concepts. It does both; however, the specific issue under discussion is purely a subclassing problem, and one which pywin32

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Oct 5, 2009, at 4:59 AM, Ben Finney wrote: >> If you *want* to respond, you can politely direct them to >> http://docs.python.org/install/> where they can learn how to >> install Python distributions — no mention of eggs at all. > > Package owners are not allowed to comme

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Fred Drake wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> User ratings and comments are the >> future for "app store" style sites such as PyPI > > Interestingly, I consider sites like PyPI as developer resources > rather than the more end-user-centric "App Store" sites. > >

Re: [Python-Dev] summary of transitioning from % to {} formatting

Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 4, 2009, at 4:11 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> Barry Warsaw wrote: >>> I also don't think this is a case of anti-TOOWTDI. For most situations >>> {}-strings are great (IMO), but in the specific translation domain, I >>> suspect $-strings are still better. >> >> I agree

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

Guido van Rossum wrote: > \>> I hate calling methods on string literals, I think it looks very odd >>> to have code like this: >>> >>> "Displaying {0} of {1} revisions".format(x, y) >> Ugh! Good point. > > This objection was made years ago when we introduced > "separator".join(list_of_things),

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: I should also mention this bug was not unknown. I discovered it after Distribute 0.6 was released as I always run cutting edge interpreters. Never bothered to report it until Distribute 0.6.1 was released which Tarek fixed in less than a week.

Re: [Python-Dev] summary of transitioning from % to {} formatting

On Oct 5, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Oh, I see what you meant now - you were pointing out that lazy formatting APIs (such as logging) already don't work properly for alternative formatting mechanisms (such as string.Template). Yep. (Although printing to a String IO doesn't seem ne

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > When it comes to comments and recommendations for selecting software > packages, developers *are* the end users :) Yes, most certainly. But developers as consumers are very different from application users as consumers, which is what I was ge

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

>> My question was less about the political aspects than the technical aspects. >> I gather you're saying that the fix to setuptools will make it work in >> 2.6.3 without inadvertently breaking it for 2.6.2, 2.6.1, and 2.6.0, right? >> Have you tried the fix in those older versions to be sure? >>

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Fred Drake wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> When it comes to comments and recommendations for selecting software >> packages, developers *are* the end users :) > > Yes, most certainly.  But developers as consumers are very different >

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Olemis Lang wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Fred Drake wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> When it comes to comments and recommendations for selecting software >>> packages, developers *are* the end users :) >> >> Yes, most c

Re: [Python-Dev] summary of transitioning from % to { } formatting

Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes: > Oh, I see what you meant now - you were pointing out that lazy > formatting APIs (such as logging) already don't work properly for > alternative formatting mechanisms (such as string.Template). > Logging doesn't work automatically with string.Template as it pre

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

2009/10/4 INADA Naoki : >> -1 That requires keeping formatting information around in every string >> instance. > Adding new "format_string" class avoids it. >  unicode("foo") <=> u"foo" >  format_string("foo") <=> f"foo" > > This way's pros: > * Many libraries can use one transition way. > * Trans

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

>> * Moderation > [...] >> * Flagging as spam > > * Captcha ? In the specific case, neither would have helped. a) the user making the comment that the package author felt to be impolite was a real user, with an established, well-known identity, and long-time member of the community (IIUC). That

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

2009/10/5 Nick Coghlan : > So I would agree that method invocation on literals (particularly string > literals) is an already established language idiom. And who hasn't ever used 4.56.as_integer_ratio()? :) -- Regards, Benjamin ___ Python-Dev mailing

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

Benjamin Peterson wrote: 2009/10/5 Nick Coghlan : So I would agree that method invocation on literals (particularly string literals) is an already established language idiom. And who hasn't ever used 4.56.as_integer_ratio()? :) I've tried 4.__add__ a few times (not for a while n

Re: [Python-Dev] summary of transitioning from % to {} formatting

Barry Warsaw wrote: > I also don't think this is a case of anti-TOOWTDI. For most situations > {}-strings are great (IMO), but in the specific translation domain, I > suspect $-strings are still better. I agree that keeping string.Template around is valid due to its focus on being very simple to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 389: argparse - new command line parsing module

Yuvgoog Greenle wrote: > I know this might come through as bike shedding but it's just > customary python that every module have it's own exception types as to > not mix them up with others. Not in my Python world it isn't. While that is sometimes the right answer, more often the right answer is t

[Python-Dev] comments vs spam in PyPI [was: eggs now mandatory for pypi?]

Antoine Pitrou writes: > Guido van Rossum python.org> writes: > > > > There are plenty of things we > > can learn about fighting spam and other forms of vandalism from other > > areas of the social web, including our very own wiki, and other wikis > > (WikiPedia survives despite spam). >

Re: [Python-Dev] comments vs spam in PyPI [was: eggs now mandatory for pypi?]

At 01:43 PM 10/6/2009 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: IMO it would be better to design developer-specific mechanisms rather than a generic commenting vehicle, cf. Fred Drake's thinking. For example, having a packages reddit (nb: open source, written in Python), where people can upvote or dow

Re: [Python-Dev] comments vs spam in PyPI [was: eggs now mandatory for pypi?]

P.J. Eby telecommunity.com> writes: > For example, having a packages reddit (nb: open source, written in > Python), where people can upvote or downvote packages and leave > comments. That's probably the minimum amount of checks and balances > required to avoid problems of the sort the PyPI co