On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2010, at 02:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:01:42 +0100
>>Łukasz Langa wrote:
>>
>>> Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
>>>
>>> >> *(I sometimes lose track of which
Lukasz Langa wrote:
> Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
>
> Right. I missed that it was already in 2.7.
> So, now we're stuck with it, forever.
>
> Why not deprecate it for 3.2 (easy since it's probably not yet used anywhere
> anyway, even in 2
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> I really like that much better than Java-like accessor functions.
>
> Do you actually use sysconfig yourself? It's quite a specialized
> module, and I don't think API elegance arguments have a great weight
> here.
I would also like those
On Dec 12, 2010, at 02:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:01:42 +0100
>Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
>> Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
>>
>> >> *(I sometimes lose track of which changes were made in both branches
>> >> pre-2.7, which ones w
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:01:42 +0100
Łukasz Langa wrote:
> Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
>
> >> *(I sometimes lose track of which changes were made in both branches
> >> pre-2.7, which ones were mode post-2.7 release, and which ones went in
> >> pre-2
Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
>> *(I sometimes lose track of which changes were made in both branches
>> pre-2.7, which ones were mode post-2.7 release, and which ones went in
>> pre-2.7, but were 3.x only regardless)
>
> Right. I missed that it was
On Dec 11, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:55:25 +1000
>> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/10/2010 4:59 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> Li
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:55:25 +1000
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> > On 12/10/2010 4:59 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>> >
>> >> Like Éric, I'm not sure what the implications of the existing
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:55:25 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > On 12/10/2010 4:59 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> >
> >> Like Éric, I'm not sure what the implications of the existing module
> >> having been released in 2.7 and 3.2 beta are in terms
Sorry to get late in the discussion I am travelling.
Nick resumes well the motivations behind sysconfig.
I'll emphase that this module could hold more functions in the future that
could be useful to other python implementations to abstract what is a python
installation. E.g. more than paths and v
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 12/10/2010 4:59 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>
>> Like Éric, I'm not sure what the implications of the existing module
>> having been released in 2.7 and 3.2 beta are in terms of making such an
>> API change.
>
> I am with Raymond on this: th
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 7:59 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:18:14 -0800, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>> ISTM it mostly could have been reduced to single call returning a nested
>> dictionary.
>
> If what was returned was, as you suggested on IRC, a set of named tuples,
> it
On 12/10/2010 4:59 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Like Éric, I'm not sure what the implications of the existing module
having been released in 2.7 and 3.2 beta are in terms of making such an
API change.
I am with Raymond on this: the purpose of betas is so we can test *and*
make changes. No one s
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:18:14 -0800, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
> Does anyone know why this needed a separate module and so many accessor
> functions?
Originally sysconfig was moved *out* of distutils, and distutils was
changed to use it. But that proved to be as fragile as many other
distutils c
On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:27:26 -0800
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>
>> IMO, sysconfig did not warrant a whole module.
>
> Where would you put it?
A single function in the sys module.
>
>> Rather than using two levels of dictionary, it's als
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:27:26 -0800
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> IMO, sysconfig did not warrant a whole module.
Where would you put it?
> Rather than using two levels of dictionary, it's also possible
> to use a named tuple if you think that is more clean looking:
>
>>>> c = sys.sysconfig()
On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> Final note: with 3.2 being in beta, I don’t know how much can be changed
> now.
Part of the purpose of a beta, and in our case, two betas is to give
people a chance to exercise new APIs and fix them before they
become set in stone two months later
Hi,
Original discussion for the sysconfig module was short:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-May/089520.html
Tarek will reply better, but I think the issue to solve was to move
sysconfig out of distutils, improving its API a bit in the process but
not overhauling it completely. A
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
> Does anyone know why this needed a separate module and so many accessor
> functions?
> ISTM it mostly could have been reduced to single call returning a nested
> dictionary.
Tarek will likely answer for himself, but I believe it is a
Does anyone know why this needed a separate module and so many accessor
functions?
ISTM it mostly could have been reduced to single call returning a nested
dictionary.
Raymond
from sysconfig import *
import json
def sysconf():
return dict(paths = get_paths(),
config_vars
20 matches
Mail list logo
