Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?

On 18 August 2014 11:14, Donald Stufft wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014, at 09:02 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> I'm unsure about what's the single biggest pain moving to Python 3. In the >> past I would have said that it's for sure the bytes/str split (which both >> the biggest pain and the bigges

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: > I've hit basically every problem everyone here has stated, and in no uncertain > terms am I completely opposed to deprecating anything. The Python 2 to 3 > migration is already hard enough, and already proceeding far too slowly for > many of ou

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 08/17/2014 09:40 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Le 17/08/2014 20:08, Nick Coghlan a écrit : On 18 Aug 2014 09:57, "Barry Warsaw" mailto:ba...@python.org>> wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2014, at 09:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > >I'm talking more generally - do you *really* want to be explaining that

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

Donald Stufft stufft.io> writes: > > > > For the record I’ve had all of the problems that Nick states and I’m > +1 on this change. > > > --- > Donald Stufft > PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA > I've hit basically every problem everyone here has stated, and in no uncer

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 08/17/2014 04:08 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> >> I'm fine with postponing the deprecation elements indefinitely (or just >> deprecating bytes(int) and leaving >> bytearray(int) alone). > > > +1 on both pieces. Perhaps postpone the depreca

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 08/17/2014 04:08 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: I'm fine with postponing the deprecation elements indefinitely (or just deprecating bytes(int) and leaving bytearray(int) alone). +1 on both pieces. -- ~Ethan~ ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@pytho

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

from __future__ import bytesdoneright? :D -- Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io On Sun, Aug 17, 2014, at 09:40 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le 17/08/2014 20:08, Nick Coghlan a écrit : > > > > On 18 Aug 2014 09:57, "Barry Warsaw" > > wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 18, 2014,

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

Le 17/08/2014 20:08, Nick Coghlan a écrit : On 18 Aug 2014 09:57, "Barry Warsaw" mailto:ba...@python.org>> wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2014, at 09:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > >I'm talking more generally - do you *really* want to be explaining that > >"bytes" behaves like a tuple of integers, w

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 08/17/2014 02:19 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: On Aug 17, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: I've had many of the problems Nick states and I'm also +1. There are two code snippets below which were taken from the standard library. [...] My issues are with 'bytes', not 'bytearray'. 'b

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

Le 17/08/2014 19:41, Raymond Hettinger a écrit : The APIs have been around since 2.6 and AFAICT there have been zero demonstrated need for a special case for a single byte. We already have a perfectly good spelling: NUL = bytes([0]) That is actually a very cumbersome spelling. Why should

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014, at 09:02 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> On Aug 16, 2014, at 07:43 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> >(Don't understand this to mean that we should never deprecate things. >> >Deprecations will happen, they are necessa

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 16, 2014, at 07:43 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > >(Don't understand this to mean that we should never deprecate things. > >Deprecations will happen, they are necessary for the evolution of any > >programming language. But they won't

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 18, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > >There's actually another aspect to your idea, independent of the naming: > >exposing a view rather than just an iterator. I'm going to have to look at > >the implications for memoryview,

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Aug 18, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >There's actually another aspect to your idea, independent of the naming: >exposing a view rather than just an iterator. I'm going to have to look at >the implications for memoryview, but it may be a good way to go (and would >align with the iterat

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 18 Aug 2014 09:57, "Barry Warsaw" wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2014, at 09:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > >I'm talking more generally - do you *really* want to be explaining that > >"bytes" behaves like a tuple of integers, while "bytes.bytes" behaves like > >a tuple of bytes? > > I would explain it d

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Aug 18, 2014, at 09:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >I'm talking more generally - do you *really* want to be explaining that >"bytes" behaves like a tuple of integers, while "bytes.bytes" behaves like >a tuple of bytes? I would explain it differently though, using concrete examples. data = byt

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 18 Aug 2014 09:41, "Raymond Hettinger" wrote: > > > I encourage restraint against adding an unneeded class method that has no parallel > elsewhere. Right now, the learning curve is mitigated because bytes is very str-like > and because bytearray is list-like (i.e. the method names have been us

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Aug 17, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Purely deprecating the bytes case and leaving bytearray alone would likely > address my concerns. That is good progress. Thanks :-) Would a warning for the bytes case suffice, do you need an actual deprecation? > bytes.byte() thus becomes t

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

Le 16/08/2014 01:17, Nick Coghlan a écrit : * Deprecate passing single integer values to ``bytes`` and ``bytearray`` I'm neutral. Ideally we wouldn't have done that mistake at the beginning. * Add ``bytes.zeros`` and ``bytearray.zeros`` alternative constructors * Add ``bytes.byte`` and ``by

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 18 Aug 2014 08:55, "Barry Warsaw" wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2014, at 08:48 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > >Calling it bytes is too confusing: > > > >for x in bytes(data): > > ... > > > >for x in bytes(data).bytes() > > > >When referring to bytes, which bytes do you mean, the builtin or t

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 18 Aug 2014 03:07, "Raymond Hettinger" wrote: > > > On Aug 17, 2014, at 1:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> If I see "bytearray(10)" there is nothing there that suggests "this >> creates an array of length 10 and initialises it to zero" to me. I'd >> be more inclined to guess it would be equival

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Aug 18, 2014, at 08:48 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >Calling it bytes is too confusing: > >for x in bytes(data): > ... > >for x in bytes(data).bytes() > >When referring to bytes, which bytes do you mean, the builtin or the method? > >iterbytes() isn't especially attractive as a method

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 18 Aug 2014 08:04, "Markus Unterwaditzer" wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > I think the biggest API "problem" is that default iteration returns integers > > instead of bytes. That's a real pain. > > I agree, this behavior required some helper function

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

Le 17/08/2014 13:07, Raymond Hettinger a écrit : FWIW, I've been teaching Python full time for three years. I cover the use of bytearray(n) in my classes and not a single person out of 3000+ engineers have had a problem with it. This is less about bytearray() than bytes(), IMO. bytearray() i

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > I think the biggest API "problem" is that default iteration returns integers > instead of bytes. That's a real pain. I agree, this behavior required some helper functions while porting Werkzeug to Python 3 AFAIK. > > I'm not sure .

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

> On Aug 17, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Raymond Hettinger > wrote: > > > On Aug 17, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Ethan Furman > wrote: > >> I've had many of the problems Nick states and I'm also +1. > > There are two code snippets below which were taken from the standard library. >

Re: [Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

I think the biggest API "problem" is that default iteration returns integers instead of bytes. That's a real pain. I'm not sure .iterbytes() is the best name for spelling iteration over bytes instead of integers though. Given that we can't change __iter__(), I personally would perhaps prefer a s

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Aug 17, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: > I've had many of the problems Nick states and I'm also +1. There are two code snippets below which were taken from the standard library. Are you saying that: 1) you don't understand the code (as the pep suggests) 2) you are willing to break th

[Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Aug 17, 2014 12:17 PM, "Donald Stufft" wrote: >> On Aug 17, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger >> wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 17, 2014, at 1:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >>> If I see "bytearray(10)" there is nothing there that suggests "this >>> creates an array of length 10 and initialises it

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 08/17/2014 10:16 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: For the record I’ve had all of the problems that Nick states and I’m +1 on this change. I've had many of the problems Nick states and I'm also +1. -- ~Ethan~ ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

> On Aug 17, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger > wrote: > > > On Aug 17, 2014, at 1:41 AM, Nick Coghlan > wrote: > >> If I see "bytearray(10)" there is nothing there that suggests "this >> creates an array of length 10 and initialises it to zero" to me. I'd >> be

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Aug 17, 2014, at 1:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > If I see "bytearray(10)" there is nothing there that suggests "this > creates an array of length 10 and initialises it to zero" to me. I'd > be more inclined to guess it would be equivalent to "bytearray([10])". > > "bytearray.zeros(10)", on th

Re: [Python-Dev] "embedded NUL character" exceptions

Sounds good to me. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > Currently most functions which accepts string argument which then passed > to C function as NUL-terminated string, reject strings with embedded NUL > character and raise TypeError. ValueError looks more appropriate he

[Python-Dev] "embedded NUL character" exceptions

Currently most functions which accepts string argument which then passed to C function as NUL-terminated string, reject strings with embedded NUL character and raise TypeError. ValueError looks more appropriate here, because argument type is correct (str), only its value is wrong. But this is b

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?

On Aug 16, 2014, at 07:43 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >(Don't understand this to mean that we should never deprecate things. >Deprecations will happen, they are necessary for the evolution of any >programming language. But they won't ever hurt in the way that Python 3 >hurt.) It would be useful t

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?

On 08/17/2014 03:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: I've seen a few people on python-ideas express the assumption that there will be another Py3k style compatibility break for Python 4.0. I've also had people express the concern that "you broke compatibility in a major way once, how do we know you won't

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython (merge 3.4 -> default): Issue #22165: Fixed test_undecodable_filename on non-UTF-8 locales.

This change is okay and not harmful. But I think, It might still not fix the encoding issue that we encountered on Mac. [localhost cpython]$ hg log -l 1 changeset: 92128:7cdc941d5180 tag: tip parent: 92126:3153a400b739 parent: 92127:a894b629bbea user:Serhiy Storchaka d

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On 17 August 2014 18:13, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Key points in the proposal: > > * deprecate passing integers to bytes() and bytearray() > > > I'm opposed to removing this part of the API. It has proven useful > and the alternative isn't

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?

On 17 August 2014 15:34, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 17 August 2014 15:08, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> I think this would be a great topic for a blog post. Once you've written it >> I can even bless it by Tweeting about it. :-) > > Sounds like a plan - I'll try to put together something coherent this

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 467: Minor API improvements for bytes & bytearray

On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Key points in the proposal: > > * deprecate passing integers to bytes() and bytearray() I'm opposed to removing this part of the API. It has proven useful and the alternative isn't very nice. Declaring the size of fixed length arrays is no