Christian Heimes cheimes.de> writes:
>
> How about:
>
> * Python 2.6.4 Windows X86-64 installer (Windows AMD64 / Intel 64 /
> X86-64 binary -- does not include source)
+1. I don't care about trademarks or official names, we should call it whatever
is obvious for our users.
As for Itanium, it i
On 1/12/2010 2:46 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
I presume the email below is about the Windows binary. Does the AMD64
release work on intel 64bit and can we make the wording clearer on the
download page?
The current description is " Windows AMD64 binary".
FWIW, we simply use (64-bit, x64).
Platf
> How about:
>
> * Python 2.6.4 Windows X86-64 installer (Windows AMD64 / Intel 64 /
> X86-64 binary -- does not include source)
>
> instead of:
>
> * Python 2.6.4 Windows AMD64 installer (Windows AMD64 binary -- does
> not include source)
-1. AMD doesn't want us to use the term x86-64 anymor
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 14:10, MRAB wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm back on the regex module after doing other things and I'd like your
> opinion on a number of matters:
>
> Firstly, the current re module has a bug whereby it doesn't split on
> zero-width matches. The BDFL has said that this behaviour s
MRAB wrote:
Hi all,
I'm back on the regex module after doing other things and I'd like your
opinion on a number of matters:
Firstly, the current re module has a bug whereby it doesn't split on
zero-width matches. The BDFL has said that this behaviour should be
retained by default in case any ex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>> On behalf of the Python development team, I'm gleeful to announce the
>> second
>> alpha release of Python 2.7.
>>
>>
> Well yay. Django's test suite (1242 tests) ru
On 12 Jan, 10:04 pm, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
[...]
I've done a fair bit of 3.x porting, and I'm firmly convinced that
2.x can do nothing:
[...]
Inherently, 2.8 can't improve on that.
I agree that there are limitations like the ones you've listed, but I
disagree with your conclusion. Maybe
On 12/01/2010 23:41, Christian Heimes wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
I presume the email below is about the Windows binary. Does the AMD64
release work on intel 64bit and can we make the wording clearer on the
download page?
The current description is " Windows AMD64 binary".
The instal
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/12/2010 5:10 PM, MRAB wrote:
Hi all,
I'm back on the regex module after doing other things and I'd like your
opinion on a number of matters:
Firstly, the current re module has a bug whereby it doesn't split on
zero-width matches. The BDFL has said that this behaviour sh
On 12/01/2010 23:40, Michael Foord wrote:
On 12/01/2010 23:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
[snip...]
"""The binaries for AMD64 will also work on processors that implement
the Intel 64 architecture (formerly EM64T), i.e. the architecture that
Microsoft calls x64, and AMD called x86-64 before calling
Michael Foord wrote:
> I presume the email below is about the Windows binary. Does the AMD64
> release work on intel 64bit and can we make the wording clearer on the
> download page?
>
> The current description is " Windows AMD64 binary".
The installer works on all AMD64 compatible Intel CPUs.
On 12/01/2010 23:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
[snip...]
"""The binaries for AMD64 will also work on processors that implement
the Intel 64 architecture (formerly EM64T), i.e. the architecture that
Microsoft calls x64, and AMD called x86-64 before calling it AMD64.
They will not work on Intel Itan
> I'm not talking about Twisted moving to 3.x (FWIW, I think the only
> movement there so far is some patches for some -3 warnings). The
> situation I'm describing is a project X that:
>
> (a) has 2.x-only dependencies, and
> (b) would like to be as close as possible to 3.x (because they like
> I presume the email below is about the Windows binary. Does the AMD64
> release work on intel 64bit and can we make the wording clearer on the
> download page?
"intel 64bit" is as clear as mud. It could mean the "Intel 64"
architecture, or it could mean the "IA-64" architecture, both
are 64-bit
> Nick wrote:
>>> This has nothing to do with pushing 3.x, but all with managing
>>> available manpower and still providing quality software.
>>
>> Python 3.x needs more carrots.
>
> As Guido has said a few times, the gains are far greater for *new*
> Python developers than they are for existing on
On 1/12/2010 5:10 PM, MRAB wrote:
Hi all,
I'm back on the regex module after doing other things and I'd like your
opinion on a number of matters:
Firstly, the current re module has a bug whereby it doesn't split on
zero-width matches. The BDFL has said that this behaviour should be
retained by
On 1/12/2010 5:04 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
But you won't *have* fewer differences. Just because your code runs
on 2.8 doesn't mean it will stop running on 2.3 (if you have a need
for that). This doesn't get you any closer - you can't use any of
the 2.8 features as long as you have to support
"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
[...]
> > But a hypothetical 2.8 would also give people a way to move closer to
> > py3k without giving up on using all their 2.x-only dependencies.
>
> How so? If they use anything that is new in 2.8, they *will* need to
> drop support for anything before it, no???
>
>
I presume the email below is about the Windows binary. Does the AMD64
release work on intel 64bit and can we make the wording clearer on the
download page?
The current description is " Windows AMD64 binary".
All the best,
Michael
Original Message
Subject:Download Pa
Hi all,
I'm back on the regex module after doing other things and I'd like your
opinion on a number of matters:
Firstly, the current re module has a bug whereby it doesn't split on
zero-width matches. The BDFL has said that this behaviour should be
retained by default in case any existing softwa
> I think it would be interesting to see how people are using the tracker,
> or how they want to be using it. For example, there are currently over
> 1500 open issues with no stage set, some of which seemingly haven't been
> read by anyone at all. Would a properly set stage field save issues from
>
> [...]
>> I've done a fair bit of 3.x porting, and I'm firmly convinced that
>> 2.x can do nothing:
> [...]
>> Inherently, 2.8 can't improve on that.
>
> I agree that there are limitations like the ones you've listed, but I
> disagree with your conclusion. Maybe you assume that it's just as hard
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 22:56, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Maybe not, but the Distribute feature is there because IMO the
>> distutils feature by itself isn't particularily useful. You need to
>> write your own distutils extensions, in practice, and they are not
>> trivial.
>
> I wouldn't say that
On 12/01/2010 21:53, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
a) telling people that they have to move to 2.6 first actually
hurts migration, instead of helping, because it implies to them
that they have to drop old versions (e.g. 2.3.) - just because
they had *always* dropped old versions before suppor
> Maybe not, but the Distribute feature is there because IMO the
> distutils feature by itself isn't particularily useful. You need to
> write your own distutils extensions, in practice, and they are not
> trivial.
I wouldn't say that. My Django port works with bare distutils (as
does Django itsel
>> a) telling people that they have to move to 2.6 first actually
>> hurts migration, instead of helping, because it implies to them
>> that they have to drop old versions (e.g. 2.3.) - just because
>> they had *always* dropped old versions before supporting new ones.
>
> Is it just an impli
Brett Cannon wrote:
> I expect there will be at least summary emails on what gets discussed.
> There is also a chance that it will be videotaped.
The Wiki makes for a better summary archive though.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:31, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:47:50 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 17:57, Brian Curtin
> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 14:25, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > >> * any changes needed to the issue tracker to help with the wor
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:47:50 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 17:57, Brian Curtin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 14:25, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> * any changes needed to the issue tracker to help with the workflow?
> >> (stage field seems like a failed experiment and we no
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 04:29, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 12:16, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2010, at 09:57 PM, Steven Bethard wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually there's a solution to this one too:
>
>FooBase = Meta('FooBase', (), {})
>class Foo(FooBase):
>...
>
> That shou
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 17:57, Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 14:25, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> * any changes needed to the issue tracker to help with the workflow?
>> (stage field seems like a failed experiment and we now have several
>> effective triage people who can help w/ gui
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 05:09, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Michael has given me the hg transition/stdlib time slot at the language
> > summit this year. In regards to that I plan to lead a discussion on:
> >
> > * where we are at w/ the Hg transition (Dirkjan should be there an
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:10:14 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> There are actually a whole host of reasons issues can stagnate:
> - a feature request may seem reasonable (hence it doesn't get rejected
> outright), but the right API may not be clear (hence it doesn't get
> implemented in the near term)
>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 04:20, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:57:46 -0600, Brian Curtin a écrit :
> >
> > For example, there are currently over
> > 1500 open issues with no stage set, some of which seemingly haven't been
> > read by anyone at all.
>
> I think most issues /have/ be
Brett Cannon wrote:
> Michael has given me the hg transition/stdlib time slot at the language
> summit this year. In regards to that I plan to lead a discussion on:
>
> * where we are at w/ the Hg transition (Dirkjan should be there and I did a
> blog post on this topic recently:
> http://sayspy.b
On 12/01/2010 12:16, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jan 11, 2010, at 09:57 PM, Steven Bethard wrote:
Actually there's a solution to this one too:
FooBase = Meta('FooBase', (), {})
class Foo(FooBase):
...
That should work in Python 2.X and 3.X.
Ugly, but good call! :)
On Jan 11, 2010, at 09:57 PM, Steven Bethard wrote:
>Actually there's a solution to this one too:
>
>FooBase = Meta('FooBase', (), {})
>class Foo(FooBase):
>...
>
>That should work in Python 2.X and 3.X.
Ugly, but good call! :)
>I've got argparse running on Python 2.3-3.1, and th
On Jan 11, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Jack Diederich wrote:
>3) 100% of the module level assignments in public projects were the
>"__metaclass__ = type" variety which is why there isn't a fixer for
>that. Also, a fixer would have been really, really ugly (munge every
>class definition in this module beca
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:57:46 -0600, Brian Curtin a écrit :
>> For example, there are currently over
>> 1500 open issues with no stage set, some of which seemingly haven't been
>> read by anyone at all.
>
> I think most issues /have/ been read. It's just that for many of the
Le Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:20:27 +, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with properly setting the stage
> field. We just have limited time and manpower. Perhaps one of our goals
> should be to reach out more to potential contributors.
Speaking of which, Steve had so
Le Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:57:46 -0600, Brian Curtin a écrit :
>
> For example, there are currently over
> 1500 open issues with no stage set, some of which seemingly haven't been
> read by anyone at all.
I think most issues /have/ been read. It's just that for many of them,
nobody is interested eno
David Lyon wrote:
>> This has nothing to do with pushing 3.x, but all with managing
>> available manpower and still providing quality software.
>
> Python 3.x needs more carrots.
As Guido has said a few times, the gains are far greater for *new*
Python developers than they are for existing ones.
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> And, I just realized, it doesn't warn for you using cmp or __cmp__
> either, and 2to3 won't fix that, so it should actually warn for it.
I have a vague recollection that we tried to warn for that and ended up
nixing the warning due to vast swarms of false alarms (or becaus
Michael Foord wrote:
>> Note that the behaviour here is still different from that of a data
>> descriptor: with a data descriptor, once it gets shadowed in the
>> instance dictionary, the descriptor is ignored *completely*. The only
>> way to get the descriptor involved again is to eliminate the sh
44 matches
Mail list logo