GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. |
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites |
GeezerVison is showing mail.python.org — Mailman 3 February 2004 - Python-Dev - python.org Python-Dev
Threads by month
February 2004
It has been a while since I posted a copy of PEP 1 to the mailing
lists and newsgroups. I've recently done some updating of a few
sections, so in the interest of gaining wider community participation
in the Python development process, I'm posting the latest revision of
PEP 1 here. A version of the PEP is always available on-line at
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
Enjoy,
-Barry
-------------------- snip snip --------------------
PEP: 1
Title: PEP Purpose and Guidelines
Version: $Revision: 1.36 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2002/07/29 18:34:59 $
Author: Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton
Status: Active
Type: Informational
Created: 13-Jun-2000
Post-History: 21-Mar-2001, 29-Jul-2002
What is a PEP?
PEP stands for Python Enhancement Proposal. A PEP is a design
document providing information to the Python community, or
describing a new feature for Python. The PEP should provide a
concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for
the feature.
We intend PEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new
features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for
documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python. The
PEP author is responsible for building consensus within the
community and documenting dissenting opinions.
Because the PEPs are maintained as plain text files under CVS
control, their revision history is the historical record of the
feature proposal[1].
Kinds of PEPs
There are two kinds of PEPs. A standards track PEP describes a
new feature or implementation for Python. An informational PEP
describes a Python design issue, or provides general guidelines or
information to the Python community, but does not propose a new
feature. Informational PEPs do not necessarily represent a Python
community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors
are free to ignore informational PEPs or follow their advice.
PEP Work Flow
The PEP editor, Barry Warsaw <peps(a)python.org>, assigns numbers
for each PEP and changes its status.
The PEP process begins with a new idea for Python. It is highly
recommended that a single PEP contain a single key proposal or new
idea. The more focussed the PEP, the more successfully it tends
to be. The PEP editor reserves the right to reject PEP proposals
if they appear too unfocussed or too broad. If in doubt, split
your PEP into several well-focussed ones.
Each PEP must have a champion -- someone who writes the PEP using
the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in
the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus
around the idea. The PEP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first
attempt to ascertain whether the idea is PEP-able. Small
enhancements or patches often don't need a PEP and can be injected
into the Python development work flow with a patch submission to
the SourceForge patch manager[2] or feature request tracker[3].
The PEP champion then emails the PEP editor <peps(a)python.org> with
a proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the PEP.
This draft must be written in PEP style as described below.
If the PEP editor approves, he will assign the PEP a number, label
it as standards track or informational, give it status 'draft',
and create and check-in the initial draft of the PEP. The PEP
editor will not unreasonably deny a PEP. Reasons for denying PEP
status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound,
not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards
compatibility, or not in keeping with the Python philosophy. The
BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for Life, Guido van Rossum) can be
consulted during the approval phase, and is the final arbitrator
of the draft's PEP-ability.
If a pre-PEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-PEP
to the comp.lang.python newsgroup (a.k.a. python-list(a)python.org
mailing list) to help flesh it out, gain feedback and consensus
from the community at large, and improve the PEP for
re-submission.
The author of the PEP is then responsible for posting the PEP to
the community forums, and marshaling community support for it. As
updates are necessary, the PEP author can check in new versions if
they have CVS commit permissions, or can email new PEP versions to
the PEP editor for committing.
Standards track PEPs consists of two parts, a design document and
a reference implementation. The PEP should be reviewed and
accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a
reference implementation will aid people in studying the PEP.
Standards Track PEPs must include an implementation - in the form
of code, patch, or URL to same - before it can be considered
Final.
PEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a
PEP before submitting it for review. A PEP that has not been
discussed on python-list(a)python.org and/or python-dev(a)python.org
will not be accepted. However, wherever possible, long open-ended
discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies
to keep the discussions efficient include, setting up a separate
SIG mailing list for the topic, having the PEP author accept
private comments in the early design phases, etc. PEP authors
should use their discretion here.
Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP
editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL
and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send
it back to the author(s) for revision.
Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be
completed. When the reference implementation is complete and
accepted by the BDFL, the status will be changed to `Final.'
A PEP can also be assigned status `Deferred.' The PEP author or
editor can assign the PEP this status when no progress is being
made on the PEP. Once a PEP is deferred, the PEP editor can
re-assign it to draft status.
A PEP can also be `Rejected'. Perhaps after all is said and done
it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of
this fact.
PEPs can also be replaced by a different PEP, rendering the
original obsolete. This is intended for Informational PEPs, where
version 2 of an API can replace version 1.
PEP work flow is as follows:
Draft -> Accepted -> Final -> Replaced
^
+----> Rejected
v
Deferred
Some informational PEPs may also have a status of `Active' if they
are never meant to be completed. E.g. PEP 1.
What belongs in a successful PEP?
Each PEP should have the following parts:
1. Preamble -- RFC822 style headers containing meta-data about the
PEP, including the PEP number, a short descriptive title
(limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and
optionally the contact info for each author, etc.
2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical
issue being addressed.
3. Copyright/public domain -- Each PEP must either be explicitly
labelled as placed in the public domain (see this PEP as an
example) or licensed under the Open Publication License[4].
4. Specification -- The technical specification should describe
the syntax and semantics of any new language feature. The
specification should be detailed enough to allow competing,
interoperable implementations for any of the current Python
platforms (CPython, JPython, Python .NET).
5. Motivation -- The motivation is critical for PEPs that want to
change the Python language. It should clearly explain why the
existing language specification is inadequate to address the
problem that the PEP solves. PEP submissions without
sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
6. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by
describing what motivated the design and why particular design
decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that
were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is
supported in other languages.
The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the
community and discuss important objections or concerns raised
during discussion.
7. Backwards Compatibility -- All PEPs that introduce backwards
incompatibilities must include a section describing these
incompatibilities and their severity. The PEP must explain how
the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. PEP
submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility
treatise may be rejected outright.
8. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must
be completed before any PEP is given status 'Final,' but it
need not be completed before the PEP is accepted. It is better
to finish the specification and rationale first and reach
consensus on it before writing code.
The final implementation must include test code and
documentation appropriate for either the Python language
reference or the standard library reference.
PEP Template
PEPs are written in plain ASCII text, and should adhere to a
rigid style. There is a Python script that parses this style and
converts the plain text PEP to HTML for viewing on the web[5].
PEP 9 contains a boilerplate[7] template you can use to get
started writing your PEP.
Each PEP must begin with an RFC822 style header preamble. The
headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with
`*' are optional and are described below. All other headers are
required.
PEP: <pep number>
Title: <pep title>
Version: <cvs version string>
Last-Modified: <cvs date string>
Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
* Discussions-To: <email address>
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Final | Replaced>
Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
* Requires: <pep numbers>
Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
* Python-Version: <version number>
Post-History: <dates of postings to python-list and python-dev>
* Replaces: <pep number>
* Replaced-By: <pep number>
The Author: header lists the names and optionally, the email
addresses of all the authors/owners of the PEP. The format of the
author entry should be
address(a)dom.ain (Random J. User)
if the email address is included, and just
Random J. User
if the address is not given. If there are multiple authors, each
should be on a separate line following RFC 822 continuation line
conventions. Note that personal email addresses in PEPs will be
obscured as a defense against spam harvesters.
Standards track PEPs must have a Python-Version: header which
indicates the version of Python that the feature will be released
with. Informational PEPs do not need a Python-Version: header.
While a PEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial
Draft phase), a Discussions-To: header will indicate the mailing
list or URL where the PEP is being discussed. No Discussions-To:
header is necessary if the PEP is being discussed privately with
the author, or on the python-list or python-dev email mailing
lists. Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To: header
will not be obscured.
Created: records the date that the PEP was assigned a number,
while Post-History: is used to record the dates of when new
versions of the PEP are posted to python-list and/or python-dev.
Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g. 14-Aug-2001.
PEPs may have a Requires: header, indicating the PEP numbers that
this PEP depends on.
PEPs may also have a Replaced-By: header indicating that a PEP has
been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the
number of the PEP that replaces the current document. The newer
PEP must have a Replaces: header containing the number of the PEP
that it rendered obsolete.
PEP Formatting Requirements
PEP headings must begin in column zero and the initial letter of
each word must be capitalized as in book titles. Acronyms should
be in all capitals. The body of each section must be indented 4
spaces. Code samples inside body sections should be indented a
further 4 spaces, and other indentation can be used as required to
make the text readable. You must use two blank lines between the
last line of a section's body and the next section heading.
You must adhere to the Emacs convention of adding two spaces at
the end of every sentence. You should fill your paragraphs to
column 70, but under no circumstances should your lines extend
past column 79. If your code samples spill over column 79, you
should rewrite them.
Tab characters must never appear in the document at all. A PEP
should include the standard Emacs stanza included by example at
the bottom of this PEP.
A PEP must contain a Copyright section, and it is strongly
recommended to put the PEP in the public domain.
When referencing an external web page in the body of a PEP, you
should include the title of the page in the text, with a
footnote reference to the URL. Do not include the URL in the body
text of the PEP. E.g.
Refer to the Python Language web site [1] for more details.
...
[1] http://www.python.org
When referring to another PEP, include the PEP number in the body
text, such as "PEP 1". The title may optionally appear. Add a
footnote reference that includes the PEP's title and author. It
may optionally include the explicit URL on a separate line, but
only in the References section. Note that the pep2html.py script
will calculate URLs automatically, e.g.:
...
Refer to PEP 1 [7] for more information about PEP style
...
References
[7] PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
If you decide to provide an explicit URL for a PEP, please use
this as the URL template:
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-xxxx.html
PEP numbers in URLs must be padded with zeros from the left, so as
to be exactly 4 characters wide, however PEP numbers in text are
never padded.
Reporting PEP Bugs, or Submitting PEP Updates
How you report a bug, or submit a PEP update depends on several
factors, such as the maturity of the PEP, the preferences of the
PEP author, and the nature of your comments. For the early draft
stages of the PEP, it's probably best to send your comments and
changes directly to the PEP author. For more mature, or finished
PEPs you may want to submit corrections to the SourceForge bug
manager[6] or better yet, the SourceForge patch manager[2] so that
your changes don't get lost. If the PEP author is a SF developer,
assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise assign it to the PEP
editor.
When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first
with the PEP author and/or PEP editor.
PEP authors who are also SF committers, can update the PEPs
themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.
Remember to also push the formatted PEP text out to the web by
doing the following:
% python pep2html.py -i NUM
where NUM is the number of the PEP you want to push out. See
% python pep2html.py --help
for details.
Transferring PEP Ownership
It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of PEPs to
a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original
author as a co-author of the transferred PEP, but that's really up
to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is
because the original author no longer has the time or interest in
updating it or following through with the PEP process, or has
fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not
responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is
because you don't agree with the direction of the PEP. We try to
build consensus around a PEP, but if that's not possible, you can
always submit a competing PEP.
If you are interested assuming ownership of a PEP, send a message
asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the
PEP editor <peps(a)python.org>. If the original author doesn't
respond to email in a timely manner, the PEP editor will make a
unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can be
reversed. :).
References and Footnotes
[1] This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands
for retrieving older revisions. For those without direct access
to the CVS tree, you can browse the current and past PEP revisions
via the SourceForge web site at
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/python/nondist/peps/?cvsroot=…
[2] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
[3] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=355470&group_id=5470&func=browse
[4] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
[5] The script referred to here is pep2html.py, which lives in
the same directory in the CVS tree as the PEPs themselves.
Try "pep2html.py --help" for details.
The URL for viewing PEPs on the web is
http://www.python.org/peps/
[6] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
[7] PEP 9, Sample PEP Template
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0009.html
Copyright
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End:
Feb. 23, 2005
Hi.
[Mark Hammond]
> The point isn't about my suffering as such. The point is more that
> python-dev owns a tiny amount of the code out there, and I don't believe we
> should put Python's users through this.
>
> Sure - I would be happy to "upgrade" all the win32all code, no problem. I
> am also happy to live in the bleeding edge and take some pain that will
> cause.
>
> The issue is simply the user base, and giving Python a reputation of not
> being able to painlessly upgrade even dot revisions.
I agree with all this.
[As I imagined explicit syntax did not catch up and would require
lot of discussions.]
[GvR]
> > Another way is to use special rules
> > (similar to those for class defs), e.g. having
> >
> > <frag>
> > y=3
> > def f():
> > exec "y=2"
> > def g():
> > return y
> > return g()
> >
> > print f()
> > </frag>
> >
> > # print 3.
> >
> > Is that confusing for users? maybe they will more naturally expect 2
> > as outcome (given nested scopes).
>
> This seems the best compromise to me. It will lead to the least
> broken code, because this is the behavior that we had before nested
> scopes! It is also quite easy to implement given the current
> implementation, I believe.
>
> Maybe we could introduce a warning rather than an error for this
> situation though, because even if this behavior is clearly documented,
> it will still be confusing to some, so it is better if we outlaw it in
> some future version.
>
Yes this can be easy to implement but more confusing situations can arise:
<frag>
y=3
def f():
y=9
exec "y=2"
def g():
return y
return y,g()
print f()
</frag>
What should this print? the situation leads not to a canonical solution
as class def scopes.
or
<frag>
def f():
from foo import *
def g():
return y
return g()
print f()
</frag>
[Mark Hammond]
> > This probably won't be a very popular suggestion, but how about pulling
> > nested scopes (I assume they are at the root of the problem)
> > until this can be solved cleanly?
>
> Agreed. While I think nested scopes are kinda cool, I have lived without
> them, and really without missing them, for years. At the moment the cure
> appears worse then the symptoms in at least a few cases. If nothing else,
> it compromises the elegant simplicity of Python that drew me here in the
> first place!
>
> Assuming that people really _do_ want this feature, IMO the bar should be
> raised so there are _zero_ backward compatibility issues.
I don't say anything about pulling nested scopes (I don't think my opinion
can change things in this respect)
but I should insist that without explicit syntax IMO raising the bar
has a too high impl cost (both performance and complexity) or creates
confusion.
[Andrew Kuchling]
> >Assuming that people really _do_ want this feature, IMO the bar should be
> >raised so there are _zero_ backward compatibility issues.
>
> Even at the cost of additional implementation complexity? At the cost
> of having to learn "scopes are nested, unless you do these two things
> in which case they're not"?
>
> Let's not waffle. If nested scopes are worth doing, they're worth
> breaking code. Either leave exec and from..import illegal, or back
> out nested scopes, or think of some better solution, but let's not
> introduce complicated backward compatibility hacks.
IMO breaking code would be ok if we issue warnings today and implement
nested scopes issuing errors tomorrow. But this is simply a statement
about principles and raised impression.
IMO import * in an inner scope should end up being an error,
not sure about 'exec's.
We will need a final BDFL statement.
regards, Samuele Pedroni.
I have just had the experience of writing a bunch
of expressions of the form
"create index %(table)s_lid1_idx on %(table)s(%(lid1)s)" % params
and found myself getting quite confused by all the parentheses
and "s" suffixes. I would *really* like to be able to write
this as
"create index %{table}_lid1_idx on %{table}(%{lid1})" % params
which I find to be much easier on the eyes.
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. |
greg(a)cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
March 31, 2004
Hi all,
I am one of the maintainer of Python on OpenVMS.
Building from time to time Python 2.4 from CVS snapshot, I have just noticed
that all the conditional compilation against WITH_UNIVERSAL_NEWLINES has been
removed.
This is a major problem on OpenVMS.
VMS has a complex file system which is mostly record oriented and not stream
oriented (even if it support stream oriented files, this is not the default).
For example it support the following record formats: fixed-length,
variable-length, variable with fixed-length control, 3 stream format, etc...
The default is variable-length.
So reading (opening) text file, for example during a import, in binary mode
lead to incorrect results because there are no '\n' or any character (or
combinaison of characters) at the end of the line.
If the file is not open in binary mode the VMS CRTL automatically append a
'\n' at the end of the record, so all work correctly. This not the case in
binary mode, in this case the record is read as is, in fact you even get the
control part of the record.
So, is it possible to maintain this test, even as undocumented or is it
acceptable to transform it into a specific VMS test. But I suspect that other
mainframe file system will have the same problem.
Thanks for any help.
Regards,
Jean-François
Hi colleagues,
this is my second attempt to get rid of the f_tstate field
in frames. I need to find every user of this field.
What am I talking about?
Well, Python always has a thread state variable which
is a unique handle to the current thread. This variable
is accessed in many places, and there exists a fast macro
to get at it.
Every executing Python frame also gets a copy on creation.
In some cases, this frame->f_tstate field is used,
in other cases the current tstate variable is used.
If this sounds foreign to you, please stop reading here.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to get rid of the frame->f_tstate, and I'm trying
to find out if there is a need for it. I don't need it,
for Stackless, it is the opposite, it disturbs.
There was a small thread about this in June this year, where
Guido convinced me that it is possible to create a traceback
on a frame that comes from a different thread.
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-June/036254.html
Ok, this is in fact possible, although I don't think
anybody has a need for this.
My question to all extension writers is this:
If you use frame->f_tstate at all, do you use it just
because it is handy, or do you want to use it for
some other purpose?
One purpose could be that you really want to create a traceback
on a different than the current thread. I have never seen this,
but who knows, so that's why I'm asking the Python world.
In most cases, a traceback will be created on a frame
that is currently processd or just has been processed.
Accessing a frame of a different thread that is being processed
might make sense for special debugger cases.
My proposal is
--------------
a) change semantics of PytraceBack_Here to use the current tstate.
b) if such a special purpose exists, create a new function for it.
c) if urgent, different needs exist to keep f_tstate,
then let's forget about this proposal.
Especially for Stackless, I'd be keen of getting rid of this.
thanks for input -- chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
Here's the draft PEP for imports. I'll wait a few days for comments
before sending to the PEPmeister.
PEP: XXX
Title: Imports: multi-line and absolute/relative
Version:
Last-Modified:
Author: Aahz <aahz(a)pythoncraft.com
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Python-Version: 2.4
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 21-Dec-2003
Post-History:
Abstract
========
The ``import`` statement has two problems:
* Long ``import`` statements can be difficult to write, requiring
various contortions to fit Pythonic style guidelines.
* Imports can be ambiguous in the face of packages; within a package,
it's not clear whether ``import foo`` refers to a module within the
package or some module outside the package.
For the first problem, it is proposed that parentheses be permitted to
surround names, thus allowing Python's standard mechanisms for multi-line
values to apply. For the second problem, it is proposed that all
``import`` statements be absolute by default (more precisely, relative to
``sys.path``) with special syntax for accessing package-relative imports.
Rationale for parentheses
=========================
Currently, if you want to import a lot of names from a module or
package, you have to choose one of several unpalatable options:
* Write a long line with backslash continuations:
::
from Tkinter import Tk, Frame, Button, Entry, Canvas, Text \
LEFT, DISABLED, NORMAL, RIDGE, END
* Write multiple ``import`` statements:
::
from Tkinter import Tk, Frame, Button, Entry, Canvas, Text
from Tkinter import LEFT, DISABLED, NORMAL, RIDGE, END
(``import *`` is *not* an option ;-)
Instead, it should be possible to use Python's standard grouping
mechanism (parentheses) to write the ``import`` statement::
from Tkinter import ( Tk, Frame, Button, Entry, Canvas, Text
LEFT, DISABLED, NORMAL, RIDGE, END )
This part of the proposal already has BDFL approval.
Rationale for absolute imports
==============================
In current Python, if you're reading a module located inside a package,
it is not clear whether
::
import foo
refers to a top-level module or another module inside the package. To
resolve the ambiguity, it is proposed that ``foo`` will always be a
module or package reachable from ``sys.path``.
Because this represents a change in semantics, absolute imports will be
optional in Python 2.4 through the use of
::
from __future__ import absolute_import
This PEP will be updated when it is decided to make absolute imports the
default, probably Python 2.5 or 2.6.
This part of the proposal already has BDFL approval.
Rationale for relative imports
==============================
With the shift to absolute imports, the question arose whether relative
imports should be allowed at all. Several use cases were presented, the
most important of which is being able to rearrange the structure of
large packages without having to edit sub-packages.
Guido approved of the idea of relative imports, but there has been a lot
of disagreement on the spelling (syntax). There does seem to be
agreement that relative imports will require listing specific names to
import (that is, ``import foo`` as a bare term will always be an
absolute import).
Here are the contenders:
* One from Guido:
::
from .foo import
and
::
from ...foo import
These two forms have a couple of different suggested semantics. One
semantic is to make each dot represent one level. There have been many
complaints about the difficulty of counting dots. Another option is to
only allow one level of relative import. That misses a lot of
functionality, and people still complained about missing the dot in the
one-dot form. The final option is to define an algorithm for finding
relative modules and packages; the objection here is "Explicit is better
than implicit".
* The next set of options is conflated from several posters:
::
from __pkg__.__pkg__ import
and
::
from .__parent__.__parent__ import
Many people (Guido included) think these look ugly, but they *are* clear
and explicit. Overall, more people prefer ``__pkg__`` as the shorter
option.
* Finally, some people dislike the way you have to change ``import``
to ``from ... import`` when you want to dig inside a package. They
suggest completely rewriting the ``import`` syntax:
::
from MODULE import NAMES as RENAME searching HOW
or
::
import NAMES as RENAME from MODULE searching HOW
[from NAMES] [in WHERE] import ...
However, this most likely could not be implemented for Python 2.4 (too
big a change), and allowing relative imports is sufficiently critical
that we need something now (given that the standard ``import`` will
change to absolute import).
Open Issues
===========
The BDFL needs to decide which of the various options for relative
imports works best. Additional proposals are still welcome. As usual,
Guido prefers reasons to histrionics.
References
==========
For more background, see the following python-dev threads:
- `Re: Christmas Wishlist <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/040973.html>`_
- `Re: Python-Dev Digest, Vol 5, Issue 57 <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/041078.html>`_
- `Relative import <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/041065.html>`_
- `Another Strategy for Relative Import <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/041418.html>`_
Copyright
=========
This document has been placed in the public domain.
..
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End:
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I'm
happy to announce the release of Python 2.3.3 (release candidate 1).
Python 2.3.3 is a bug-fix release of Python 2.3. A couple of serious
bugs related to weakrefs and the cyclic garbage collector have been
fixed, along with a number of bugs in the standard library. See the
release notes on the web page for more details.
For more information on Python 2.3.3c1, including download links for
various platforms, release notes, and known issues, please see
http://www.python.org/2.3.3
Highlights of this new release include:
- A couple of serious bugs in the interactions of weakrefs and
cyclic GC have been squashed.
- At shutdown, the second call to the cyclic garbage collector has
been removed. This caused more problems than it solved.
- The xml.parsers.expat module now provides Expat 1.95.7.
- urllib2's HTTP Digest Auth support works again.
- See http://www.python.org/2.3.3/NEWS.html for other bugfixes.
Highlights of the previous major Python release (2.3) are available
from the Python 2.3 page, at
http://www.python.org/2.3/highlights.html
A final version of Python 2.3.3 should follow in a couple of weeks,
just in time for your Christmas stockings.
Enjoy the new release,
Anthony
Anthony Baxter
anthony(a)python.org
Python 2.3.x Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
I submitted patch 764217
<http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=764221&group_id
=5470&atid=305470> awhile ago and it got some intial interest, but after applying the
requested changes I've not heard anything for quite awhile.
The summary of the patch is: kFont.Font(name=xxx) crashes if a font by
the specified name already exists. This is a problem for several
reasons, the main one being that it makes life really tough if you want
to create a new tkFont.Font object for a given Tcl named font.
Is there anything I can do to get this moving again? I don't want to be
pushy, but I was certainly hoping to get it into Python 2.4.
Regards,
-- Russell
Bug #897625 (http://python.org/sf/897625) deals with giving
time.strftime() date information that is outside of proper bounds (e.g.,
using a negative number for the day of the week). This can lead to a
crash since it seems some strftime implementations just index into an
array for values for text and thus a negative value can lead to bad
things happening.
I would like to raise a ValueError if the argument is out of range.
Problem is that this will break code. I could just force all negative
values to all values outside the proper bounds to a reasonable value,
but that seems to go against the path of least surprise. That is
question 1.
Question 2 is what to really check. This really is only a concern for
month and day of the week since everything else is just a number and
doesn't have some name representation. I could check all 9 values,
though, or just these two.
Question 3 is whether to extend this to time.asctime() . I have talked
to Tim about this and his thoughts are to just deal with time.strftime()
and leave everything else alone. That's fine with me, but there is the
same possibility of having problems with asctime(). But then again,
checking value for asctime() would potentially break even more code.
So, thoughts?
-Brett
I've been working on ways to speedup parameter passing for function
calls. It's somewhat expensive to pull parameters off of the stack,
assemble them into a new tuple, have the function disassemble the tuple,
and ultimately free the tuple.
METH_NOARGS and METH_O show nice speed-ups by skipping the tuple packing
and unpacking. Since they are handled as special cases, that approach
doesn't handle the general case with multiple or optional arguments.
My idea is for a new flag, METH_STACK, that generalizes (and potentially
replaces) METH_NOARGS AND METH_O.
When CALL_FUNCTION sees the flag, it dispatches (*meth)(self, &stack,
numargs).
On the receiving end, the arguments get retrieved with analogues to
PyArg_ParseTuple() and PyArg_UnpackTuple() which access the parameters
directly and do not need a tuple as a carrier.
Raymond Hettinger
|
| You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up. Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required. |
