On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I'd suggest explicitly reaching out to the Stackless folks to get
> their feedback. As I believe the switched to a newer compiler and VC
> runtime for Windows a while back, I suspect it will make their lives
> easier rather than harder, but i
On 23 June 2015 at 11:45, Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
> wrote:
>>> I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7,
>>
>> Would this change anything about how extensions are built?
>>
>> There is now the "ms compiler for 2.7" would that w
On 22 June 2015 at 17:13, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But what *is* the correct behavior? I suspect people's intuitions differ. If
> you think of this as similar to function scopes you're likely to be wrong.
For me, there's a correct answer for *new* users based on the combination of:
1. For modul
On 17 June 2015 at 09:26, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> A quick look through the checkin logs suggests that there's literally
> nothing happening in 3.6 right now. All the checkins are merges.
>
> Is anyone expecting to do work in 3.6 soon? Or did the early branch just
> create a bunch of make-wor
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:32 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>> OK, so what you are saying is that speed.python.org will run a buildbot
>> slave so that when a change is committed to cPython, a speed run will be
>> triggered? Is "the runner"
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
>> I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7,
>
> Would this change anything about how extensions are built?
>
> There is now the "ms compiler for 2.7" would that work? Or only in
> concert with VS2010 express?
It shoul
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
> Zachary Ware wrote:
>> With the stipulation that the officially supported compiler won't change, I
>> want
>> to make sure there's no major opposition to replacing the old project files
>> in
>> PCbuild. The old files would move to PC\VS9.0,
> I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7,
Would this change anything about how extensions are built?
There is now the "ms compiler for 2.7" would that work? Or only in
concert with VS2010 express?
-CHB
> and Intel is
> willing to fund that work as part of making Python ICC compilab
Zachary Ware wrote:
> With the stipulation that the officially supported compiler won't change, I
> want
> to make sure there's no major opposition to replacing the old project files in
> PCbuild. The old files would move to PC\VS9.0, so they'll still be available
> and
> usable if necessary.
I'
On 23 Jun 2015 04:12, "Ethan Furman" wrote:
>
> -1 on auto-chaining.
>
> +1 on chaining helper functions so it's dirt-simple.
Chiming in again since I wasn't clear on this aspect last time: I'd also be
+1 on parallel APIs that handle the chaining.
Since the auto-chaining idea seems largely unpop
Updating the build system to better handle changes in underlying platforms
is one of the "standard exemptions" arising from Python 2.7's long term
support status, so if this change makes things easier for contributors on
Windows, +1 from me.
Cheers,
Nick.
__
-1 on auto-chaining.
+1 on chaining helper functions so it's dirt-simple.
--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/
Hi,
As you may know, Steve Dower put significant effort into rewriting the
project files used by the Windows build as part of moving to VC14 as
the official compiler for Python 3.5. Compared to the project files
for 3.4 (and older), the new project files are smaller, cleaner,
simpler, more easily
On 06/19/2015 08:21 AM, triccare triccare wrote:
And, more generally, is there a way to know the extent of implementation of any
particular PEP?
By default, no new features are going into the 2.7 line. If something does, it
will be mentioned explicitly in the PEP. See PEP 466 [1] and 476 [
On Thu Jun 18 20:33:13 CEST 2015, Larry Hastings asked:
> On 06/18/2015 11:27 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Unicode 8.0 was just released. Can we have unicodedata updated to
>> match in 3.5?
> What does this entail? Data changes, code changes, both?
Note that the unicode 7 changes also need to
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 22 June 2015 at 08:46, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 21 June 2015 at 22:05, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It is still not clear whether Guido's comment
16 matches
Mail list logo
