I just
couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
2-3 chasm, as this would leave behind my faithful pre-2.6 users.
Not sure whom you had been talking to. But I would have tried to explain
that you don't
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:10:57 -0700, Brendan Abel wrote:
The entire fact that 3.x was *designed* to be incompatible should tell
you that supporting 2.x and 3.x with a single code base is a bad idea,
except for the very smallest of projects.
I don't see that follows at all. If the
2010/7/8 Michele Simionato michele.simion...@gmail.com:
On Jul 7, 10:55 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com wrote:
I just
couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3
On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/7/2010 5:29 AM, geremy condra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip
On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even able to keep a
single C
On 7/2/10 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
That's the real issue, not parentheses on the print statement.
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no
killer app for it. End of life for Python 2.x is many years away;
In article 5325a$4c349b5b$4275d90a$27...@fuse.net,
Kevin Walzer k...@codebykevin.com wrote:
That's decision for each business to make. My guess is that many
businesses won't upgrade for some time, until the major
libraries/modules support Python 3. I don't plan to move to Python 3 for
at
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul
6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3
warnings is
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel 007bren...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
geremy condra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel 007bren...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to
On Jul 5, 1:34 am, sturlamolden sturlamol...@yahoo.no wrote:
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Exactly.
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are
On Jul 7, 2:10 pm, Brendan Abel 007bren...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul
6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
One thing that would
On 7/7/2010 5:29 AM, geremy condra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchu
I ported two pure C extensions from 2
On 7/7/2010 4:31 AM, Paul McGuire wrote:
[snip interesting report on how Paul suppost pyparsing for 2.3 to 3.1]
Thank you for this.
Do you think such cross-version support would have been easier or harder
if the major changes and deletions in 3.0 has been spread over several
versions, such
Dear Paul McGuire:
Thank you very much for these notes!
See also a few other notes:
Michael Foord:
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/weblog/arch_d7_2010_03_20.shtml#e1167
Ned Batchelder:
http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200910/running_the_same_code_on_python_2x_and_3x.html
I was wondering if it
Am 07.07.2010 23:10, schrieb Brendan Abel:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of
On Jul 7, 10:55 pm, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire pt...@austin.rr.com wrote:
I just
couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
2-3 chasm, as this would
Python 3.x will continue to change. The incompatibilities between 3.x
and 2.x will only become more numerous. If your goal is to support
2.x, and 3.x, you'd be best supporting them separately.
I don't think that's a particularly good approach. Having a single code
base for both likely
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to
Steven D'Aprano, 05.07.2010 08:31:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
Using Python 2.x for new
projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.
That's pure FUD.
Python 2.7 will
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:30:34 +0800
David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
Yes, PyGreSQL
On Jul 5, 2:56 am, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
The Twisted team has a list of what they need:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/172306/how-are-you-planning-on-han...;
Here's what I got from a quick google review of the below four
projects and python 3.
* Zope Interface
2010/7/6 David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com:
Or is there no change at the C level? That would make things easy.
There are quite a few, but outside of the big pain point of
strings/byte/unicode which is present at python level as well, a lot
of the issues are not so big (and even simpler to
On 7/6/2010 11:19 AM, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
2010/7/6 David Cournapeaucourn...@gmail.com:
Or is there no change at the C level? That would make things easy.
There are quite a few, but outside of the big pain point of
strings/byte/unicode which is present at python level as well, a lot
of
On 07/06/2010 07:17 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
docs.python.org / dev/3.0/howto/cporting.html
http://docs.python.org/py3k/howto/cporting.html
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jul 6, 12:37 am, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
In his post on this thread, Martin Loewis volunteered to list what he
knows from psycopg2 if someone else will edit.
Now we are getting somewhere! This is the community spirit i want to
see. You don't have to give much people, every
On Jul 2, 4:07 pm, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
python 3 bring to people. The what's new in python 3 page gives
the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
Using Python 2.x for new
projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.
That's pure FUD.
Python 2.7 will be supported longer than the normal
On 7/4/2010 10:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:59:03 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
Denying that there's a problem does not help.
Nobody is denying that there is a problem, but there are plenty of people
denying that there are any solutions.
The folks doing development of CPython are genuinely interested in
constructive
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by
On 7/5/2010 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
On 7/4/2010 10:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I you have any other ideas about other top blockers, please share them.
The Twisted team has a list of what they need:
On 7/5/2010 6:04 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
[snip]
I think numpy will work for 3.1 as well
If numpy were released today for 3.1 (or even anytime before 3.2), that
would be great. It would let those waiting for it that it
On 7/5/10 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
* PyCrypto
* PyOpenSSL
These, and Mark Pilgrim's feedparser, need to be 3.x compatible before I
can think about Python 3.x.
--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyGreSQL and would like
to move it to 3.x right now but
Am 05.07.2010 22:30, schrieb D'Arcy J.M. Cain:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain
On 7/5/2010 12:35 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
On 7/5/10 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
* PyCrypto
* PyOpenSSL
These, and Mark Pilgrim's feedparser, need to be 3.x compatible before I
can think about Python 3.x.
There's been an attempt to port feedparser to 3.0, but
that needed a port of
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk phi...@semanchuk.com wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
phi...@semanchuk.com wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even able to keep a
single C codebase. I'd be willing to contribute my experiences to a
document
On 2 Jul, 21:07, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
http://jens.mooseyard.com/2008/12/python-30-whats-the-point/
He is right on. The only thing Python 3k will do for me, is break all
my code and be incompatible with all extension modules I need. What's
the point? indeed.
--
On 7/4/2010 1:20 PM, sturlamolden wrote:
On 2 Jul, 21:07, John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
http://jens.mooseyard.com/2008/12/python-30-whats-the-point/
He is right on. The only thing Python 3k will do for me, is break all
my code and be incompatible with all extension modules I need.
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:58:04 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to identify the
top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to Python 3 by major
projects with many users.
Are you
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Exactly.
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many users.
On 7/4/2010 5:34 PM, sturlamolden wrote:
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
Exactly.
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part is the
problem right now. A good first step would be to identify the top
5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to Python 3 by
On Jul 4, 8:59 pm, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
That's what happens when you
mismanage an incompatible transition.
+1
Python has strong competition. In the last two years,
Javascript has become much faster, PHP is getting a JIT compiler,
Lua, as recently mentioned, is getting
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The incompatible with all extension modules I need part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many users.
Let me repeat. Last September, if not
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
python 3 bring to people. The what's new in python 3 page gives
the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
poor argument to push people to switch.
David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
python 3 bring to people. The what's new in python 3 page gives
the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
poor argument to push people to switch.
That's the
On 07/02/2010 09:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
What I'm not seeing is a deployment plan along these lines:
1.Identify key modules which must be converted before Python 3
can be used in production environments.
That depends VERY strongly on the environment in question.
2.
On Jul 2, 12:07 pm, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
This has all been said before.
Yes, we know. And when no one did anything about it the first dozen
times it's been said, it wasn't because we didn't hear it, it was
because we didn't care. We still don't care now, and won't care no
In article 4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/
If you don't know what your program is
On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote:
In article4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com, John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
WebFaction's big thing is that they have a really good system for
installing
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster. It
doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no killer app
for it. End of life for Python 2.x is many years away; most server Linux
distros aren't even
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster. It
doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no killer app
In article 4c2e79d3$0$1663$742ec...@news.sonic.net,
John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote:
In article4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com, John Naglena...@animats.com wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has
On 7/2/2010 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
That's the real issue, not parentheses on the print statement.
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6.
False. One cannot run code in 2.6 that depends on bugfixes in 3.1. Nor
On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net | Democracy is three wolves
On 7/2/2010 9:10 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two.
Not according to Vex's
geremy condra debat...@gmail.com writes:
Right. I'm much more concerned about the position of my Ctrl key, to
avoid hand injury from all the key chording done as a programmer.
Not saying its a cure-all, but I broke my hand pretty badly a few years
ago and had a lot of luck with a homemade
In article
3f35dcf5-25ff-4aa7-820c-592cbffa4...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com,
rantingrick rantingr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:21 pm, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type
spaces than parens.
Oh Geremy
On 30/06/2010 01:23 p.m., Lie Ryan wrote:
On 07/01/10 01:42, Michele Simionato wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Lie Ryanlie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
print statement.
(1) The main
In article mailman.50.1277932895.1673.python-l...@python.org,
geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
That is precisely how the quick-and-dirty
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
interactive use, and as a debugging aid.
That is precisely how the quick-and-dirty
On 6/30/10 5:52 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
interactive use, and as a debugging aid.
That is
On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
interactive use, and as a
On 07/01/10 01:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
On 6/30/10 5:52 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
On 07/01/10 01:42, Michele Simionato wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually
On 6/30/10 9:22 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 07/01/10 01:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
On 6/30/10 5:52 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
producing a print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
interactive use, and as a
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
producing a print statement.
(1) The main
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:21:32 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit
On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:52 , Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty)
scripts,
interactive use, and as a debugging aid.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:21:32 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan
On 30/06/2010 23:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[snips]
The rule against premature optimization doesn't just apply to *code*.
+1QOTW
Kindest regards.
Mark Lawrence.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jun 30, 9:42 am, Michele Simionato michele.simion...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually when debugging I use pdb which uses p (no parens) for
printing, so having
print or print() would not make any difference for me.
Perhaps you don't use CJK strings much?
p u'\u30d1\u30a4\u30c8\u30f3' give quite
On Jun 30, 4:21 pm, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type
spaces than parens.
Oh Geremy please. If you're going to whine about something at least
find something worth whining about! Yes a few more key strokes are
needed.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:25 PM, rantingrick rantingr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:21 pm, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type
spaces than parens.
Oh Geremy please. If you're going to whine about something at
On 6/27/2010 1:09 PM, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary
apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let
alone need, and new Py3 features.
In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in the future
(surely
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:57:58 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to
type spaces than parens.
Yes. And typing p is easier than typing print. Perhaps we should
replace all Python built-ins with one letter names so that we can
*really*
On 6/30/10 6:48 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The 10th anniversary of the announcement of PERL 6 is coming
up on July 19th, and it still hasn't displaced PERL 5 as the
primary version.
Now, I may be totally off-base, because I do not grok perl and so have
never made much of an effort to follow perl--
John Nagle wrote:
On 6/27/2010 1:09 PM, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary
apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let
alone need, and new Py3 features.
In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:57:58 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to
type spaces than parens.
Yes. And typing p is easier than typing print.
Steven D'Aprano steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au writes:
But, honestly, is there anyone here, even the most heavy users of
print, who would seriously expect that adding parentheses to print
calls will do more than add a tiny fraction to the amount of typing
effort already required to use
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Steven D'Aprano steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au writes:
But, honestly, is there anyone here, even the most heavy users of
print, who would seriously expect that adding parentheses to print
calls will do more than add a tiny fraction
Steven D'Aprano steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au writes:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Steven D'Aprano steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au writes:
I suppose in principle those extra three key presses (shift-9
shift-0 vs space) could be the straw that breaks
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Steven D'Aprano steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au writes:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Steven D'Aprano steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au writes:
I suppose in principle those extra
In article mailman.2309.1277758252.32709.python-l...@python.org,
Stephen Hansen me+list/pyt...@ixokai.io wrote:
Uhmm, just add the parenthesis to your old scripts. You can
do that without breaking on 2.x.
Only sort of. But in Python 2.6+, you only need to from __future__
import
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Edward A. Falk f...@green.rahul.net wrote:
In article mailman.2309.1277758252.32709.python-l...@python.org,
Stephen Hansen me+list/pyt...@ixokai.io wrote:
Uhmm, just add the parenthesis to your old scripts. You can
do that without breaking on 2.x.
Only sort
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:56:37 +, Edward A. Falk wrote:
Nice. Once 100% of the installed base is at 2.6, I'll finally be able
to write code that compatible with 3.0.
What's the installed base?
Machines you control? Then just install 2.6 on your installed base and be
done with it. Or even
Stefan Reich, 26.06.2010 17:59:
This has probably been talked about on your lists, but I wasn't part of
that discussion.
I don't care to read up old arguments in one of the archives isn't a very
convincing reason to start a discussion.
Stefan
--
On 28/06/2010 00:03, eric_dex...@msn.com wrote:
It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
machine... I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start
compiling them or just include the python2.5 exe if I port stuff and
settle it that way..
I have Python
geremy condra debat...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
[..]
I've used several operating systems over many years and each OS has its
own issues. I am currently using mostly Linux and it's far from the
flawless OS some people seem to
Stephen Hansen me+list/pyt...@ixokai.io writes:
On 6/27/10 7:35 PM, John Bokma wrote:
On top of that, I don't think it's that hard to make a small program
that one associates with .py files which checks the first line and feeds
the .py to the correct version of Python based on the information
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
