[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But still, you can't honestly expect me to recommend 3.0 until someone
has gotten at least a basic skeleton of Twisted up and running under it
:). My own attempts to do so have failed miserably, to the point where
I can't even produce a useful bug report
Bill Janssen wrote:
Thomas Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allow me to paraphrase glyph (with whom I'm in complete agreement, for what
it's worth): many newbies will be disappointed by Python if they start with
Python 3.0 and discover that most of the cool possibilities they had heard
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 02:47, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the mean time, I don't mind if people learn 3.0 first and 2.6
second. It's probably easier that way than the other way around. :-)
It may be easier in a vacuum -- although I don't think it is. 3.0 is more
logical than
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Thomas Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 02:47, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the mean time, I don't mind if people learn 3.0 first and 2.6
second. It's probably easier that way than the other way around. :-)
It may be
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The best thing for 3.0 adoption would be a 3.0 welcoming committee. A
group of hackers wandering from one popular open source library to another,
writing patches for 3.x compatibility issues. There must be lots of people
who care
On 10:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When he learned he had to go
back and relearn and fix them by hand, his actual words were if thats
the
case, I'm gonna be forced to use another language. I hope that isn't a
typical example of such a case, but I can partly understand the
sentiment.
This
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 10:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When he learned he had to go
back and relearn and fix them by hand, his actual words were if thats the
case, I'm gonna be forced to use another language. I hope that isn't a
typical example of
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 06:03:55AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- On 01:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- In spite of Python being a programming language, there is a difference
- between 'casual user of the language' and 'library developer'; 3.0 is
- certainly a must for all actual library
As far as the original point of this thread, I started off just
defending the cautionary text already present in the announcements and
on the website. Since I'm not advocating any changes to that (the brief
caveat on the download page is fine), we'll just have to agree to
disagree on the
On 06:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that in many cases *some* support from the regular
maintainers of a library would be needed -- for example if you (in
particular) were to express a negative attitude towards porting
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also don't think 3.0 is perfect, and five years on, there will be a
temptation to make more just this once incompatible changes. Of course,
you've promised these changes won't be made, and *this* set of design
mistakes will be with
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course. Grumpy as we are, we're preparing for the 3.0 migration, and
have been for a while. There are tickets open in the tracker, a buildslave
reporting 2.6's -3 warnings, and soon, apparently, a buildslave that will
attempt to
On 08:51 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also don't think 3.0 is perfect, and five years on, there will be a
temptation to make more just this once incompatible changes. Of
course,
you've promised these changes won't be made, and
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 22:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In spite of Python being a programming language, there is a difference
between 'casual user of the language' and 'library developer'; 3.0 is
certainly a must for all actual library developers, and
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But I do *not* think it is a good idea to emphasize elsewhere that
most people shouldn't use Python 3.0. Py3k will have a hard enough
time gaining mindshare without the very developers who created
it discouraging its use. If you can't find it in
Aahz wrote:
I believe that it would be a shame and a disservice to Python if there
were a large proportion of the Python community that discouraged the use
of 3.0; I also believe it would be a shame and a disservice to Python if
you (and other people) tell conservatives like me that we should
Sorry, I don't think I can do that. It's difficult-to-impossible to leap
straight from Python 2.2 or 2.3 to 3.0
My experience is different. That is very well possible (of course, I
haven't heard in a long time of a project that needs to maintain
compatibility with 2.2).
Regards,
Martin
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aahz wrote:
I believe that it would be a shame and a disservice to Python if there
were a large proportion of the Python community that discouraged the use
of 3.0; I also believe it would be a shame and a disservice to
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
On Dec 4, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was
built,
just not posted correctly.
That doesn't mean very much. I built it on my local
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/576550/
This recipe shows how to use gsl FFT with python 3.
ctypes is really good!
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:05:05 -0800, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The default case, the case of the user without the wherewithal
to understand the nuances of the distinction between 2.x and 3.x, is a user
who should use 2.x.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:35 AM, A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:29:31PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box listing
which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
once every couple of
Martin There is. There have been the following trove classifiers
Martin defined for a few weeks now:
Martin Programming Language :: Python :: 2
Martin Programming Language :: Python :: 2.3
Martin Programming Language :: Python :: 2.4
Martin Programming Language :: Python
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 05:40:46AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For most users, especially new users who have yet to be impressed with
Python's power, 2.x is much better. It's not like library support is
one small check-box on the language's feature sheet: most of the
attractive
On Dec 4, 2008, at 7:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:29:31PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box
listing
which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With all due respect, for me, library support and serious use are
synonymous.
Glyph, I cannot have a discussion with you if every single post of
yours is longer than my combined daily output. Please spend some time
writing shorter
On Dec 5, 2008, at 10:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good. Now we just need to populate them. I take it the classifiers
without
minor numbers imply any known minor version (e.g., 2 == 2.3 and
greater)?
This is an excellent question, Skip.
There was already Programming Language ::
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
To be fair, if someone asked me specifically about educating non-
programmer adults about programming, I would probably at least
*mention* py3, if not recommend it outright. The improved consistency
is worth a lot in an educational setting. (But, if one is
On 5-Dec-08, at 8:40 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 05:40:46AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For most users, especially new users who have yet to be impressed
with
Python's power, 2.x is much better. It's not like library
support is
one small check-box on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregor Lingl wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
To be fair, if someone asked me specifically about educating non-
programmer adults about programming, I would probably at least
*mention* py3, if not recommend it outright. The improved
Good. Now we just need to populate them. I take it the classifiers without
minor numbers imply any known minor version (e.g., 2 == 2.3 and greater)?
Perhaps. As usual, they mean what people use them for.
I intended them to mean 2.x and 3.x, respectively, with no constraint on
x (i.e.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 19:10, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With all due respect, for me, library support and serious use are
synonymous.
Glyph, I cannot have a discussion with you if every single post of
yours is
There was already Programming Language :: Python, provided by many
packages. I think version compatibility relationships meant by each of
these classifiers should be made explicit, wherever it is that
documentation for classifiers is provided.
I don't recall having seen any such
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:47:45 pm Guido van Rossum wrote:
But I disagree that most of the cool possibilities they have heard
about are necessarily third party libraries. Python's standard
library has lots of stuff to offer.
+1 on that. I've been using Python for a decade now, and the first third
Thomas Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allow me to paraphrase glyph (with whom I'm in complete agreement, for what
it's worth): many newbies will be disappointed by Python if they start with
Python 3.0 and discover that most of the cool possibilities they had heard
about are 'being worked
On 5 Dec, 06:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With all due respect, for me, library support and serious use are
synonymous.
Glyph, I cannot have a discussion with you if every single post of
yours is longer than my combined daily
On 01:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In spite of Python being a programming language, there is a difference
between 'casual user of the language' and 'library developer'; 3.0 is
certainly a must for all actual library developers, and I'm sure most
of
them know about 3.0 by now. We're talking
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On this page:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
The text This is a proeuction release should probably read This is
Ondrej Certik wrote:
I tried to find the documentation here:
http://python.org/doc/
but clicking on the links:
http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/3.0.html
http://docs.python.org/3.0
These 404 for me as well. but the dev links have already rolled over to
3.1a0.
There are also no
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:51:33PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I
am happy to announce the release of Python 3.0 final.
Yay!
We are confident that Python 3.0 is of the same high quality as our
previous releases, such as the
Nick Coghlan schrieb:
Ondrej Certik wrote:
I tried to find the documentation here:
http://python.org/doc/
but clicking on the links:
http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/3.0.html
http://docs.python.org/3.0
These 404 for me as well. but the dev links have already rolled over to
3.1a0.
Georg Brandl wrote:
Nick Coghlan schrieb:
Ondrej Certik wrote:
I tried to find the documentation here:
http://python.org/doc/
but clicking on the links:
http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/3.0.html
http://docs.python.org/3.0
These 404 for me as well. but the dev links have already rolled
2008/12/4 A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* that there will be a Python 2.7 that will incorporate what we learn from
people trying to port,
* that 3.1 will rearrange the standard library in mostly-known ways, and
* that we expect people to use 3.0 mostly for compatibility testing,
not
Georg Brandl wrote:
I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was built,
just not posted correctly.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
From: A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think we should also have a statement upon on python.org about
future plans: e.g.
* that there will be a Python 2.7 that will incorporate what we learn from
people trying to port,
* that 3.1 will rearrange the standard library in mostly-known ways, and
2008/12/4 Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* that 3.1 will rearrange the standard library in mostly-known ways, and
* that we expect people to use 3.0 mostly for compatibility testing, not
going into serious production
use until 3.1 or maybe even 3.2.
The latter statement worries me. It
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:20:34 +, Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/4 Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
One thing I'd like to see more clearly stated is that there's no
reason NOT to use Python 3.0 for new code. I don't think that message
has really come across yet - in spite of
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
* that 3.1 will rearrange the standard library in mostly-known ways, and
* that we expect people to use 3.0 mostly for compatibility testing,
not going into serious production use until 3.1 or maybe even 3.2.
As Raymond notes, this is probably too negative: for new
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:20:34PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
Hmm, looking back, the quote Raymond is referring to is just a
suggestion for additional text on the 3.0 page. I agree with him that
it's a bit too negative.
Actually I want it to be an entirely separate page so that we can
point
From: A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps the statement could say something like we do not expect
most Python packages will be ported to the 3.x series until
around the time 3.1 is released in X months. (where X=12? 6?)
I would leave out any discussion of 3.1. Its content and release
2008/12/4 Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also, we don't know the timing of the third-party updates.
Some may never get converted. Some may convert quickly
and easily. Someone (perhaps me) may organize a series of
funded sprints to get many of the major packages converted.
One piece of
I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was built,
just not posted correctly.
That doesn't mean very much. I built it on my local machine. Anybody
with subversion and python could do that; the documentation is in
ISTM, 3.0 is in pretty good shape. There is nothing intrinsically wrong
with it.
I think it has many bugs, some known before the release, but many more
yet to show up. I agree that the design is good; the implementation will
certainly improve (I deliberately didn't say could have been better,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 4, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was
built,
just not posted correctly.
That doesn't mean very much. I built
2008/12/4 Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also, we don't know the timing of the third-party updates.
Some may never get converted. Some may convert quickly
and easily. Someone (perhaps me) may organize a series of
funded sprints to get many of the major packages converted.
From: Paul
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
From: A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps the statement could say something like we do not expect
most Python packages will be ported to the 3.x series until around the
time 3.1 is released in X months. (where X=12? 6?)
I would leave out any discussion of 3.1.
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:29:31PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box listing
which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
once every couple of weeks. That way, we're not explicitly
That's an excellent idea. We could
On 02:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:29:31PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box listing
which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
once every couple of weeks. That way, we're not
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that this specific idea (the box with the list of
supported applications / libraries) should be implementable as a
simple query against PyPI. I don't know if it actually is :), but
it should be. In general it would be
I hear some folks are considering advertising 3.0 as experimental or
not ready for serious use yet.
I think that's too negative -- we should encourage people to use it,
period. They'll have to decide for themselves whether they can live
with the lack of ported 3rd party libraries -- which may
On 4 Dec, 07:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter statement worries me. It seems to unnecessarily undermine
adoption of 3.0. It essentially says, don't use this. Is that what
we want?
I think so. The default case, the case of the user without the
wherewithal to understand the
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The default case, the case of the user without the wherewithal
to understand the nuances of the distinction between 2.x and 3.x, is a user
who should use 2.x.
Not at all clear. If they're not sensitive to those nuances it's just
as
On 04:16 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hear some folks are considering advertising 3.0 as experimental or
not ready for serious use yet.
With all due respect, for me, library support and serious use are
synonymous. When prompted I would say that 2.5 is probably the version
that a new
Here's a bright idea. On the 3.0 release page, include a box listing
which major third-party apps have been converted. Update it
once every couple of weeks. That way, we're not explicitly
discouraging adoption of 3.0, we're just listing what support is
then currently available (if you need
On Dec 5, 2008, at 2:27 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
There is. There have been the following trove classifiers defined for
a few weeks now:
Wonderful! Thanks for clueing me in. I'll update my projects to use
those in future releases.
-Fred
--
Fred Drake fdrake at acm.org
On 06:05 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The default case, the case of the user without the wherewithal
to understand the nuances of the distinction between 2.x and 3.x, is a
user
who should use 2.x.
Not at all clear. If they're not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I
am happy to announce the release of Python 3.0 final.
Python 3.0 (a.k.a. Python 3000 or Py3k) represents a major
milestone in Python's history, and was nearly three years in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On this page:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
The text This is a proeuction release should probably read This is
a production release. It would give a better first impression :)
Fixed,
On Dec 3, 2008, at 7:51 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I
am happy to announce the release of Python 3.0 final.
Props to all the folks whose hard work made this possible! You guys
rock!
-- Ed Leafe
69 matches
Mail list logo
