Mailman 3 February 2017 - docs

[issue27886] Docs: the difference between rename and replace is not obvious
by Andrew Svetlov March 13, 2021

March 13, 2021

New submission from Andrew Svetlov: Hi. On reading the doc for pathlib I've stuck with `.rename()` and `.replace()` (https://docs.python.org/3/library/pathlib.html#pathlib.Path.rename). What's the difference? Going to pathlib's source code I've figured out that methods are use different functions from `os` module: `os.rename()` and `os.replace()`. But the documentation for `os` module is not obvious too: the docs for both functions are almost equal from my perspective, the only significant difference is that `os.rename()` suggests to use `os.replace()` for cross-compatibility. Could anybody explain the difference? Also, at least the doc for `pathlib.Path.rename` worth to have a sentence like borrowed from `os.rename`: "If you want cross-platform overwriting of the destination, use replace()." ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation keywords: easy messages: 273836 nosy: asvetlov, docs@python, pitrou priority: low severity: normal status: open title: Docs: the difference between rename and replace is not obvious type: behavior versions: Python 3.4, Python 3.5, Python 3.6 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue27886> _______________________________________

4 8

[issue25741] Usual Installation Directory
by Firat Ozgul March 12, 2021

March 12, 2021

New submission from Firat Ozgul: Official documentation reads: "On Windows machines, the Python installation is usually placed in C:\Python35" However, as of Python 3.5.0, usual installation directory on Windows is %LOCALAPPDATA%\Programs\Python. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 255455 nosy: docs@python, firatozgul priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Usual Installation Directory type: enhancement versions: Python 3.5 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25741> _______________________________________

6 10

[issue15097] Improving wording on the thread-safeness of import
by Merlijn van Deen March 9, 2021

March 9, 2021

New submission from Merlijn van Deen <valhallasw(a)gmail.com>: http://docs.python.org/library/threading.html#importing-in-threaded-code Currently, the documentation states "Firstly, other than in the main module, an import should not have the side effect of spawning a new thread and then waiting for that thread in any way. Failing to abide by this restriction can lead to a deadlock if the spawned thread directly or indirectly attempts to import a module." which, I think, fails to make the main point: a call to import acquires the import lock. A call to import from a second thread will thus block. As such, I would suggest rephrasing it to something like: "Firstly, an import acquires the import lock for that thread. Therefore, the import should not have the side effect of waiting for a different thread in any way, as this can lead to a deadlock if that thread directly or indirectly attempts to import a module." There are two additional points that might be interesting to note: (1) Any module can be imported. If the import causes a deadlock, that is a bad thing. Every module *will* be imported by tools such as nosetests. (1b) so: never, ever, have code that causes locks in a different thread in module level code witout 'if __name__=="__main__" ' blocks? (2) The lock is also acquired if a module has already been imported. For instance, in import sys # (1) def f(): import sys # (2) the import lock is acquired in (1) /and/ (2). Adding example code and/or a flow diagram might be a bit too much, but it does clarify how easy it is to make this mistake. See the attached for an example (both a simple example script, as well as a flow diagram explaining what happens). ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation files: deadlock.py messages: 163068 nosy: docs@python, valhallasw priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Improving wording on the thread-safeness of import type: enhancement Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file26037/deadlock.py _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15097> _______________________________________

3 6

[issue8557] subprocess portability issue
by Dave Abrahams March 5, 2021

March 5, 2021

New submission from Dave Abrahams <dave(a)boostpro.com>: On POSIX systems, the PATH environment variable is always used to look up directory-less executable names passed as the first argument to Popen(...), but on Windows, PATH is only considered when shell=True is also passed. Actually I think it may be slightly weirder than that when shell=False, because the following holds for me: C:\>rem ##### Prepare minimal PATH ##### C:\>set "PATH=C:\Python26\Scripts;C:\Python26;C:\WINDOWS\system32;C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\System32\Wbem" C:\>rem ##### Prepare a minimal, clean environment ##### C:\>virtualenv --no-site-packages e:\zzz New python executable in e:\zzz\Scripts\python.exe Installing setuptools................done. C:\>rem ##### Show that shell=True makes the difference in determining whether PATH is respected ##### C:\>python Python 2.6.5 (r265:79096, Mar 19 2010, 18:02:59) [MSC v.1500 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import subprocess >>> subprocess.Popen(['python', '-c', 'import sys; print sys.executable']) <subprocess.Popen object at 0x0000000001DBE080> >>> C:\Python26\python.exe >>> subprocess.Popen(['python', '-c', 'import sys; print sys.executable'], env={'PATH':r'e:\zzz\Scripts'}) <subprocess.Popen object at 0x0000000001F05A90> >>> C:\Python26\python.exe >>> subprocess.Popen(['python', '-c', 'import sys; print sys.executable'], env={'PATH':r'e:\zzz\Scripts'}, shell=True) <subprocess.Popen object at 0x0000000001F05B00> >>> e:\zzz\Scripts\python.exe That is, it looks like the environment at the time Python is invoked is what counts unless I pass shell=True. I don't even seem to be able to override this behavior by changing os.environ: you can clear() it and pass env={} and subprocess.Popen(['python']) still succeeds. This is a very important problem for portable code and one that took me hours to suss out. I think: a) the current behavior needs to be documented b) it needs to be fixed if possible c) otherwise, shell=True should be the default ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 104422 nosy: dabrahams, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: subprocess portability issue type: behavior versions: Python 2.6 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8557> _______________________________________

8 23

[issue16272] C-API documentation clarification for tp_dictoffset
by Chris Colbert March 5, 2021

March 5, 2021

New submission from Chris Colbert: The documentation of the tp_dictoffset is a bit unclear when describing the responsibilities of a base type with a nonzero tp_dictoffset. http://docs.python.org/c-api/typeobj.html I feel there should some statement to the effect of: """ If a type defines a nonzero tp_dictoffset, that type is responsible for defining a `__dict__` slot as part of the tp_getset structures. Failure to do so will result in the dict being inaccesible from Python via `obj.__dict__` from instances of the type or subtypes. """ The reasoning is twofold: 1) `PyType_Ready` does not add the default getset members like `type_new` does. This prevents the instances of the type itself from retrieving `obj.__dict__` 2) `type_new` will provide the default `subtype_dict` getset member for subclasses, but this calls `get_builtin_base_with_dict` which will resolve to the most base type which is not heap allocated; in this case, the C type. Since this type has no `__dict__` getset member, the lookup fails. Adding a bit of verbage about this "gotcha" would likely save some headaches in the future. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 173222 nosy: Chris.Colbert, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: C-API documentation clarification for tp_dictoffset versions: Python 2.6, Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2, Python 3.3, Python 3.4, Python 3.5 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16272> _______________________________________

6 7

[issue12594] Docs for py3k still refer to "MacPython 2.5 folder"
by Christoph Schindler March 4, 2021

March 4, 2021

New submission from Christoph Schindler <hop(a)30hopsmax.at>: In http://docs.python.org/py3k/using/mac.html#getting-and-installing-macpython and http://docs.python.org/py3k/using/mac.html#distributing-python-applications… . ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 140744 nosy: docs@python, hop priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Docs for py3k still refer to "MacPython 2.5 folder" versions: Python 3.1, Python 3.2 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12594> _______________________________________

7 11

[issue24650] Error in yield expression documentation
by swanson Feb. 27, 2021

Feb. 27, 2021

New submission from swanson: https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html in 6.2.9. Yield expressions end of 1st paragraph: "Using a yield expression in a function’s body causes that function to be a generator." NO! As the very next sentence explains, a generator is what's returned by such a function, not the function itself. Basically, it should be sufficient to add the word "function" to the end of that sentence: "... generator function." However, this error does NOT exist in 3.0 to 3.2 - just in 3.3 to 3.6, so I suggest just using the same wording as 3.0 to 3.2: "Using a yield expression in a function definition is sufficient to cause that definition to create a generator function instead of a normal function." ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 246841 nosy: docs@python, swanson priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Error in yield expression documentation versions: Python 3.3, Python 3.4, Python 3.5, Python 3.6 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue24650> _______________________________________

4 4

[issue29045] Outdated C api doc about Windows error
by Xiang Zhang Feb. 26, 2021

Feb. 26, 2021

New submission from Xiang Zhang: https://docs.python.org/3.7/c-api/exceptions.html#c.PyErr_SetFromWindowsErr… it stills refers to PyErr_SetFromWindowsErrWithFilenameObject but this function doesn't exist since Py3.4. I didn't find when and why it's deleted. And https://docs.python.org/3.4/c-api/exceptions.html#c.PyErr_SetFromWindowsErr raises OSError instead of WindowsError. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 283814 nosy: docs@python, xiang.zhang priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Outdated C api doc about Windows error versions: Python 3.5, Python 3.6, Python 3.7 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29045> _______________________________________

2 3

[issue24045] Behavior of large returncodes (sys.exit(nn))
by Ethan Furman Feb. 26, 2021

Feb. 26, 2021

New submission from Ethan Furman: Not sure if this is a bug, or just One of Those Things: sys.exit(large_value) can wrap around if the value is too large, but this is O/S dependent. linux (ubuntu 14.04) $ python Python 2.7.8 (default, Oct 20 2014, 15:05:29) [GCC 4.9.1] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. --> import sys --> sys.exit(256) $ echo $? 0 $ python Python 2.7.8 (default, Oct 20 2014, 15:05:29) [GCC 4.9.1] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. --> import sys --> sys.exit(257) $ echo $? 1 M$ (Windows 7) > python Python 2.7... --> import sys --> sys.exit(65535) > echo %errorlevel% 65535 > python Python 2.7... --> import sys --> sys.exit(100000) > echo %errorlevel% 100000 Perhaps a minor doc update that talks about return codes and why they might not be exactly what was given to Python? ---------- assignee: docs@python messages: 241903 nosy: docs@python, ethan.furman priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Behavior of large returncodes (sys.exit(nn)) versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.5 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue24045> _______________________________________

4 5

[issue13368] Possible problem in documentation of module subprocess, method send_signal
by Eli Bendersky Feb. 24, 2021

Feb. 24, 2021

New submission from Eli Bendersky <eliben(a)gmail.com>: docs@ list report by Daniel Dieterle: in the documentation (http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.Popen.send_signal) is a bug. CTRL_C_EVENT can not be sent to processes started with a creationflags parameter which includes CREATE_NEW_PROCESS_GROUP. Why can be read in the msdn documentation http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683155%28v=vs.85%… . A workaround using CTRL_C_EVENT nevertheless is described here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7085604/sending-c-to-python-subprocess-o… -- I do not know why the subprocess.CREATE_NEW_PROCESS_GROUP parameter was introduced. But it is useless for terminating a process with os.kill() in combination with signal.SIGTERM, which corresponds to a CTRL-C-EVENT. A CTRL-C-EVENT is only forwarded to the process if the process group is zero. Therefore the Note in the documentation on Popen.send_signal() is wrong. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 147272 nosy: docs@python, eli.bendersky priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Possible problem in documentation of module subprocess, method send_signal versions: Python 2.7 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13368> _______________________________________

4 6