On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:26:52 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 1:49:58 AM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:28:28 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Every time i defeat [MARK LAWRENCE], and drag him out
through an opening in the
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 4:43:57 AM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/19/2015 3:32 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
Unix bc:
$ bc
bc 1.06.95
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation,
Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 05:01 am, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof ce...@decebal.nl
wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
to 2.7, surely bug fixes are
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
I just ran the following command
$ hg log --template {author|person}\n | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
as giving all the committers to python in sorted order.
I get the list below.
Dont see any Mark Lawrence there
Of
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:20 am, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
It gets really boring submitting 2.7-specific patches, though, when
they aren't accepted, and the committers have such a hostile attitude
towards it. I was told
On 7/19/2015 5:27 AM, Laura Creighton wrote:
In a message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:36:33 -0400, Terry Reedy writes:
If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
Because volunteers to fix any bugs are scarce? Because most
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong, not all programmers need the patches as a lot of
people couldn't care two hoots about 2.7.
Well you should. Because apparently, you're incapable of
recognizing that Py2 and Py3 are existentially joined at the
hip!
On 7/19/2015 1:53 AM, dieter wrote:
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
...
If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
I have not done much work related to Python bug fixing. But, I had
bad experience with other
On 20/07/2015 00:23, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Monday 20 Jul 2015 00:51 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 23:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 22:28 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:28:28 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Thank goodness for that as you make no sense at all. As
for this ivory tower nonsense, [...]
Cecil, don't pay too much attention to Mark, he's a glory
hound. He's like the Python community version of Cerberus --
you know, the
On 7/18/2015 10:48 PM, Zachary Ware wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I understand the general problem quite well. But feeling that one would
have to do a 2.7 backport after writing, editing, or reviewing a 3.x patch
can discourage doing a review in
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:45:43 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no negative perception of 2.7, it simply no longer
interests me, to repeat in the same way that it no longer
interests some core devs.
Your apathy towards Py2 will not shield you from the
collateral damage caused by
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 1:49:58 AM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:28:28 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Thank goodness for that as you make no sense at all. As
for this ivory tower nonsense, [...]
Cecil, don't pay too much attention to Mark, he's a glory
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:16:50 AM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 20/07/2015 02:20, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
I don't like how this is being redirected to surely you
misunderstood or I don't believe you. The fact that some core devs
are hostile to 2.x development is really
On 2015-07-19 22:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Tim Chase
python.l...@tim.thechases.com wrote:
On 2015-07-20 04:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
The int() and float() functions accept, if I'm not mistaken,
anything with Unicode category Nd (Number, decimal digit). In
your
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 22:28 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof ce...@decebal.nl wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On
On 7/19/2015 3:32 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
Unix bc:
$ bc
bc 1.06.95
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
4+5
9
obase=8
4+5
11
IOW bc has two (global) variables ibase and
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
It gets really boring submitting 2.7-specific patches, though, when
they aren't accepted, and the committers have such a hostile attitude
towards it. I was told by core devs that, instead of fixing bugs in
Python 2, I
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:21 am, breamore...@gmail.com wrote:
All in all though I have to admit that overall it's a really onerous task.
Once you've produced the patch you have to go to all the trouble of
logging on to the issue tracker, finding the appropriate issue and
uploading the patch.
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:19:58 AM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote:
But don't worry, his bark is worse than his bite, and he is
just the first of many daemons you must defeat on your quest
to challenge the benevolent Hades.
Do you give lessons in rhetoric Rick?
--
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Tim Chase
python.l...@tim.thechases.com wrote:
On 2015-07-20 04:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
The int() and float() functions accept, if I'm not mistaken,
anything with Unicode category Nd (Number, decimal digit). In
your examples, the fraction (U+215B) is No, and
On Monday 20 Jul 2015 00:51 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 23:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 22:28 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil
On 2015-07-19 14:45, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
ie we can now do
१ + २
3
That is actually quite awesome, and I would support a new feature
that set the numeric characters to a particular script, e.g. Latin,
Arabic, Devanagari, whatever, and printed them in that same script.
It seems
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:55:06 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
I don't think so, I know. If they want the patches that
badly and can't do it themselves they'll have to grin and
bear it, or do a bit of begging, or pay somebody to do it
for them.
It's all about the effing money then? So
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:02:12 PM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers
for them because they're not capable of doing it for
themselves.
Duh! That was the point of his analogy, Ian. *ALL* Python
programmers need the patches. Whether or not they possess
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Laura Creighton l...@openend.se wrote:
In this corner of the world, the favourite language for developing in
is C (because we work close to hardware) and one of the things we like
about it, a whole lot, is that the language never changes out from
under you. So
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 1:44:25 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's simply that nobody can force volunteers to back
port something when they're just not interested in doing
the work, for whatever reason. Hence my statement above,
of which you have focused on the last eight words.
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof ce...@decebal.nl wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
to 2.7, surely bug fixes
On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof ce...@decebal.nl wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM,
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 18:38 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 17:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
Of
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof ce...@decebal.nl wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
Of course, allowed. But should
On 7/18/2015 10:33 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/18/2015 8:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 00:36, Terry Reedy wrote:
Programmers don't much like doing maintainance work when they're paid to
do it, so why would
In a message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:59:29 +1000, Steven D'Aprano writes:
Bug for bug compatible back to the 1970s, right? :-)
No, till the last posix in 1989 or so. Definitely not to the 1970s
as we want v7 c structs and x++ not the v6 ++x version.
:)
Laura
--
On 2015-07-20 04:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
The int() and float() functions accept, if I'm not mistaken,
anything with Unicode category Nd (Number, decimal digit). In
your examples, the fraction (U+215B) is No, and the Roman numerals
(U+2168, U+2182) are Nl, so they're not supported. Adding
In a message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:59:29 +1000, Steven D'Aprano writes:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 07:27 pm, Laura Creighton wrote:
In the tiny corner of industrial automation where I do a lot of work,
nobody is using 3.0.
I should hope not, because 3.0 was rubbish and is unsupported :-)
I expect
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
Of course, allowed. But should they be made, and if so, by who?
The people who want the fixes.
Babies
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Tim Chase
python.l...@tim.thechases.com wrote:
Agreed that it's pretty awesome. It seems to have some holes though:
Python 3.4.2 (default, Oct 8 2014, 10:45:20)
[GCC 4.9.1] on linux
Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Laura Creighton l...@openend.se wrote:
In a message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:29:11 -0600, Ian Kelly writes:
I think this is an unrealistic and unattainable goal. Even if you stop
patching your Python 2.7 version altogether, what about the
environment that it runs
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:13:50 PM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 1:44:25 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's simply that nobody can force volunteers to back
port something when they're just not interested in doing
the work, for whatever reason. Hence
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:29:06 PM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:02:12 PM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers
for them because they're not capable of doing it for
themselves.
Duh! That was the point of his analogy,
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:35 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
I figured that was you *MARK LAWRENCE*. I shall add sock-puppeting
to your many egregious offenses! And poorly executed sock-puppeting
as well! You're a zero.
Rick, what the hell are you talking about? Mark is using the same email
address as
On 07/19/2015 06:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 20/07/2015 00:23, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
No use replying anymore. You make a caricature of what I am saying and
put words in my mouth I never said. Just stay in your cosy ivory
tower. But please do not pretend that you are open for discussion,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:35 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
I figured that was you *MARK LAWRENCE*. I shall add sock-puppeting
to your many egregious offenses! And poorly executed sock-puppeting
as well! You're a zero.
Rick,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:20 am, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
I was most frustrated by the first case -- the patch was (informally)
rejected in favor of the right fix, and the right fix was
(informally) rejected because it
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info writes:
It's very interesting that you ignore the two hardest parts of the process:
(1) Producing the patch in the first place.
(2) Convincing those with appropriate commit rights to accept the patch.
2 is often harder than 1. Or consider the case when you
On 19/07/2015 17:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
Of course, allowed. But should they be made, and if so, by
On 19/07/2015 18:14, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 18:38 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 17:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
to
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:28:15 PM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:55:06 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
I don't think so, I know. If they want the patches that
badly and can't do it themselves they'll have to grin and
bear it, or do a bit of begging, or pay
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:04:20 AM UTC+5:30, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 8:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 00:36, Terry Reedy wrote:
Programmers don't much like doing maintainance work when they're paid to
do it,
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 10:52:51 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
tl;dr: Not so much a complaint but a indicator that people
who could potentially contribute are being prevented from
entering
EXACTLY! If this community fails, it won't be due to old
members walking out of the back door, no,
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:33 pm, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
[...]
Because it helps even more people. The reason people make upstream
contributions is so that the world benefits. If you only wanted to
help yourself, you'd just patch CPython locally, and not bother
contributing anything upstream.
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu writes:
I am suggesting that if there are 10x as many 2.7only programmers as
3.xonly programmers, and none of the 2.7 programmers is willing to do
the backport *of an already accepted patch*, then maybe it should not
be done at all.
The patch acceptance/approval
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 9:16:08 AM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote:
Terry Reedy writes:
I am suggesting that if there are 10x as many 2.7only programmers as
3.xonly programmers, and none of the 2.7 programmers is willing to do
the backport *of an already accepted patch*, then maybe it should
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 01:52 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
Not to mention actively hostile attitude to discussions that could at the
moment be tangential to current CPython. See (and whole thread)
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/033708.html
I stand by my comments there. I have
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
I think that Python should allow int and float literals using any sequences
of digits from the same language, e.g. 12 or १२ but not १2.
I would agree with this. Actually, given that int(१२) works just
fine, I was
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
...
If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
I have not done much work related to Python bug fixing. But, I had
bad experience with other open source projects: many of my
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
Does they all consider it perfect (or sufficient) as is?
Should the core developers who do not personally use
On 19/07/2015 00:36, Terry Reedy wrote:
I asked the following as an off-topic aside in a reply on another
thread. I got one response which presented a point I had not considered.
I would like more viewpoints from 2.7 users.
Background: each x.y.0 release normally gets up to 2 years of
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
Considering CPython is officially accepting performance improvements
I was not exactly aware of that.
to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
Of course, allowed. But should they be made, and if so, by who?
I have contributed both
I asked the following as an off-topic aside in a reply on another
thread. I got one response which presented a point I had not considered.
I would like more viewpoints from 2.7 users.
Background: each x.y.0 release normally gets up to 2 years of bugfixes,
until x.(y+1).0 is released. For
Considering CPython is officially accepting performance improvements
to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
I have contributed both performance improvements and bug fixes to 2.7.
In my experience, the problem is not the lack of contributors, it's
the lack of code reviewers.
I think this is
On 7/18/2015 8:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 00:36, Terry Reedy wrote:
I asked the following as an off-topic aside in a reply on another
thread. I got one response which presented a point I had not considered.
I would like more viewpoints from 2.7 users.
Background: each x.y.0
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 6:37:41 PM UTC-5, Terry Reedy wrote:
If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on
2.7, why are volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
Because newer code is always more buggy than older code
(when both get significant attention that is). There were
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/18/2015 8:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 00:36, Terry Reedy wrote:
Programmers don't much like doing maintainance work when they're paid to
do it, so why would they volunteer to do it?
Right. So I am
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I understand the general problem quite well. But feeling that one would
have to do a 2.7 backport after writing, editing, or reviewing a 3.x patch
can discourage doing a review in the first place. I am at that point now
with
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 9:34:20 PM UTC-5, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
It has even been implied that bugs in Python 2 are *good*,
because that might help with Python 3 adoption.
So now we're implementing coercion, Microsoft style? What's
next, paid subscriptions to superficial, and backwards
101 - 166 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
