Mailman 3 October 2015 - docs

[issue25343] Document atomic operations on builtin types
by R. David Murray Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

R. David Murray added the comment: I think what Terry was asking was, where would you expect to see the disclaimer that *no* operations are guaranteed to be atomic? That's what we're inclining toward (though we'll probably need a signoff from Guido). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25343> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue25343] Document atomic operations on builtin types
by Dima Tisnek Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dima Tisnek added the comment: Ideally I'd like 2 sources: 1. a whole section on atomic operations in language and CPython implementation 2. annotation of standard library methods, e.g.: set().add(element) [atomic] or [CPython: atomic(*)] (*) assuming basic types, note about what custom methods would break this guarantee; the reference could be to 1. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25343> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue25343] Document atomic operations on builtin types
by Terry J. Reedy Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: This question has been asked multiple times before. I think it should be documented that as far as the language goes, there is no answer. Raymond's answer is a start. Dima, where would you expect to find such a disclaimer (other than in the FAQ)? ---------- nosy: +terry.reedy _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25343> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue25331] https://docs.python.org/3.5/using/windows.html should list whcih windows service packs are
by Laura Creighton Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

New submission from Laura Creighton: https://docs.python.org/3.5/using/windows.html should list which windows service packs are needed to install Python. Could somebody knowledgable please add this information. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation, Windows messages: 252460 nosy: docs@python, lac, paul.moore, steve.dower, tim.golden, zach.ware priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: https://docs.python.org/3.5/using/windows.html should list whcih windows service packs are _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25331> _______________________________________

2 1

[issue25343] Document atomic operations on builtin types
by Raymond Hettinger Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: > what set() operations are atomic? The language doesn't make any guarantees about set operation atomicity. Different implementations such as PyPy, Jython, and IronPython are free to make different choices than CPython. In general, users should make no assumptions about atomicity unless explicitly documented and tested. The wise course of action is to use mutexes when there is any doubt. FWIW, it is difficult to make blanket statements about the methods on sets because the atomicity depends on the objects looked up or stored in the sets rather than the set itself. Aside from trivial calls to __sizeof__ and __len__, most set methods potentially call __hash__ or __eq__ on the set elements either of which could make a callback into pure python code. Likewise, any reference count decrement can potentially make a callback as well. ---------- nosy: +rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25343> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue25343] Document atomic operations on builtin types
by R. David Murray Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

R. David Murray added the comment: I wonder...personally I prefer to program in asyncio style rather than threading style, where one doesn't have to worry about atomicity. Maybe Python shouldn't make any atomicity guarantees. ---------- nosy: +r.david.murray _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25343> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue25343] Document atomic operations on builtin types
by Brett Cannon Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Brett Cannon added the comment: We actually don't have any guarantees written down because we have never formalized them. It was discussed at the PyCon language summit this past year -- https://lwn.net/Articles/640177/ -- but it didn't lead to anyone writing a proposal to formalize the memory model. ---------- nosy: +brett.cannon _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25343> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue25343] Document atomic operations on builtin types
by Dima Tisnek Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Changes by Dima Tisnek <dimaqq(a)gmail.com>: ---------- assignee: -> docs@python components: +Documentation nosy: +docs@python type: -> enhancement _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25343> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue16802] fileno argument to socket.socket() undocumented
by Berker Peksag Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Berker Peksag added the comment: Thanks! ---------- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed versions: +Python 3.6 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16802> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue16802] fileno argument to socket.socket() undocumented
by Roundup Robot Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset f4606117d571 by Berker Peksag in branch '3.4': Issue #16802: Document fileno parameter of socket.socket() https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/f4606117d571 New changeset 1d14675c6050 by Berker Peksag in branch '3.5': Issue #16802: Document fileno parameter of socket.socket() https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/1d14675c6050 New changeset 9115c63cf3d2 by Berker Peksag in branch 'default': Issue #16802: Document fileno parameter of socket.socket() https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/9115c63cf3d2 ---------- nosy: +python-dev _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16802> _______________________________________

1 0