--On 1. September 2007 16:21:23 -0400 Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
I really hope not. A friend of mine and I want to get a bit involved in
Python 3000 once
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I see today a zope.lifecycleevent 3.4.0 was released to the
> cheeseshop (but not to download.zope.org/distribution).
>
> Unfortunately it seems to break when I install it into my buildout,
> with the following error:
>
> Ru
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
I really hope not. A friend of mine and I want to get a bit involved in Python
3000 once it is stable enough that the standard libs can get some attent
On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
I really hope not. A friend of mine and I want to get a bit involved in Python
3000 once it is stable enough that the standard libs can get some attention.
At this point I rea
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I see today a zope.lifecycleevent 3.4.0 was released to the cheeseshop
(but not to download.zope.org/distribution).
Unfortunately it seems to break when I install it into my buildout, with
the following error:
Running easy_install:
/home/faassen/bin/python2
Hi there,
I see today a zope.lifecycleevent 3.4.0 was released to the cheeseshop
(but not to download.zope.org/distribution).
Unfortunately it seems to break when I install it into my buildout, with
the following error:
Running easy_install:
/home/faassen/bin/python2.4 "-c" "from setuptools
Hey,
But we cannot officially support Python 2.5 until Zope 2 is also ported.
(This is a policy of Zope Foundation, I guess)
Just to make it clear: the Zope Foundation itself never made a decision
on this. In general, the Zope Foundation is not making development
decisions. This was a commun
Hey,
David Pratt wrote:
Ultimately, the
folks that will even want to maintain a 2.x code base will quickly erode
since the forefront of development is never the past. Perhaps it will
all move more quickly for this reason when python 3K is out for real.
This is what I fear will happen. This
Hey,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
I am basically speaking here for the Zope 2 world. If we move core
components to Python 3000 we have to move the complete Zope 2 core to
Python 3000 which will cause a huge disaster because of almost every
third party component is likely to break. This is a big
Hey,
A few months ago I voiced concerns about Python 3000 breaking existing
codebases and fracturing the community as a result. Various people in
the community landed on me like a ton of bricks. It wasn't fun.
I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come. That will
give Zope a m
Fred Drake wrote at 2007-9-1 03:14 -0400:
>On 9/1/07, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think the byte/text change is excellent.
>
>I like the clean separation of the two. What I don't like is the
>omission of an immutable bytes type.
Where is the problem -- now that we have "pypi"
On 1 Sep 2007, at 19:39 , Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007 23:35, Fred Drake wrote:
A biggie is going to be the replacement of immutable str for binary
data; that gets replaced with a mutable bytes object. It'll be good
to have, but the loss of an immutable sequence-of-bytes type
On Friday 31 August 2007 23:35, Fred Drake wrote:
> A biggie is going to be the replacement of immutable str for binary
> data; that gets replaced with a mutable bytes object. It'll be good
> to have, but the loss of an immutable sequence-of-bytes type seems
> like a problem to me.
Oh, I did not
Hi Andreas. Yes, this is where my thoughts were going with this in the
short and medium term. If you extrapolate this to not only zope, but to
other folks that depend upon zope's code base, and to the code zope
depends upon, this is not a good scenario. I am thinking about twisted,
lxml, and ma
--On 1. September 2007 16:33:58 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> May be we can try Python 3.0 porting in next GSoC ? :)
>
-1 on that. I am pretty sure that this will lead to two differen
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> May be we can try Python 3.0 porting in next GSoC ? :)
>
-1 on that. I am pretty sure that this will lead to two different
codebases which are hard to maintain over long period of time. We
should
--On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
May be we can try Python 3.0 porting in next GSoC ? :)
-1 on that. I am pretty sure that this will lead to two different codebases
which are hard to maintain over long period of time. We should stick with
Python 2.X
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
David Pratt wrote:
> Hi. I am concerned about the announcement of python 3000 today that
> will break backwards compatibility. Zope and twisted are my
> favorite frameworks. The code base for both frameworks are not
> small. I haven't evaluated the changes but I
On 9/1/07, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the byte/text change is excellent.
I like the clean separation of the two. What I don't like is the
omission of an immutable bytes type.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." --Hen
Am Freitag, den 31.08.2007, 23:35 -0400 schrieb Fred Drake:
> On 8/31/07, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's is what I am most worried about. I really need to look into this to
> > see
> > how much things changed. Maybe not as much as we tend to think.
>
> I think the changes w
20 matches
Mail list logo
