Python-Dev October 2000

python-dev@python.org

67 participants
127 discussions

XML runtime errors?
by Fredrik Lundh 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

stoopid question: why the heck is xmllib using "RuntimeError" to flag XML syntax errors? raise RuntimeError, 'Syntax error at line %d: %s' % (self.lineno, message) what's wrong with "SyntaxError"? </F>

3 3

[PEP 223] Change the Meaning of \x Escapes
by Tim Peters 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

An HTML version of the attached can be viewed at http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/pep-0223.html This will be adopted for 2.0 unless there's an uproar. Note that it *does* have potential for breaking existing code -- although no real-life instance of incompatibility has yet been reported. This is explained in detail in the PEP; check your code now. although-if-i-were-you-i-wouldn't-bother<0.5-wink>-ly y'rs - tim PEP: 223 Title: Change the Meaning of \x Escapes Version: $Revision: 1.4 $ Author: tpeters(a)beopen.com (Tim Peters) Status: Active Type: Standards Track Python-Version: 2.0 Created: 20-Aug-2000 Post-History: 23-Aug-2000 Abstract Change \x escapes, in both 8-bit and Unicode strings, to consume exactly the two hex digits following. The proposal views this as correcting an original design flaw, leading to clearer expression in all flavors of string, a cleaner Unicode story, better compatibility with Perl regular expressions, and with minimal risk to existing code. Syntax The syntax of \x escapes, in all flavors of non-raw strings, becomes \xhh where h is a hex digit (0-9, a-f, A-F). The exact syntax in 1.5.2 is not clearly specified in the Reference Manual; it says \xhh... implying "two or more" hex digits, but one-digit forms are also accepted by the 1.5.2 compiler, and a plain \x is "expanded" to itself (i.e., a backslash followed by the letter x). It's unclear whether the Reference Manual intended either of the 1-digit or 0-digit behaviors. Semantics In an 8-bit non-raw string, \xij expands to the character chr(int(ij, 16)) Note that this is the same as in 1.6 and before. In a Unicode string, \xij acts the same as \u00ij i.e. it expands to the obvious Latin-1 character from the initial segment of the Unicode space. An \x not followed by at least two hex digits is a compile-time error, specifically ValueError in 8-bit strings, and UnicodeError (a subclass of ValueError) in Unicode strings. Note that if an \x is followed by more than two hex digits, only the first two are "consumed". In 1.6 and before all but the *last* two were silently ignored. Example In 1.5.2: >>> "\x123465" # same as "\x65" 'e' >>> "\x65" 'e' >>> "\x1" '\001' >>> "\x\x" '\\x\\x' >>> In 2.0: >>> "\x123465" # \x12 -> \022, "3456" left alone '\0223456' >>> "\x65" 'e' >>> "\x1" [ValueError is raised] >>> "\x\x" [ValueError is raised] >>> History and Rationale \x escapes were introduced in C as a way to specify variable-width character encodings. Exactly which encodings those were, and how many hex digits they required, was left up to each implementation. The language simply stated that \x "consumed" *all* hex digits following, and left the meaning up to each implementation. So, in effect, \x in C is a standard hook to supply platform-defined behavior. Because Python explicitly aims at platform independence, the \x escape in Python (up to and including 1.6) has been treated the same way across all platforms: all *except* the last two hex digits were silently ignored. So the only actual use for \x escapes in Python was to specify a single byte using hex notation. Larry Wall appears to have realized that this was the only real use for \x escapes in a platform-independent language, as the proposed rule for Python 2.0 is in fact what Perl has done from the start (although you need to run in Perl -w mode to get warned about \x escapes with fewer than 2 hex digits following -- it's clearly more Pythonic to insist on 2 all the time). When Unicode strings were introduced to Python, \x was generalized so as to ignore all but the last *four* hex digits in Unicode strings. This caused a technical difficulty for the new regular expression engine: SRE tries very hard to allow mixing 8-bit and Unicode patterns and strings in intuitive ways, and it no longer had any way to guess what, for example, r"\x123456" should mean as a pattern: is it asking to match the 8-bit character \x56 or the Unicode character \u3456? There are hacky ways to guess, but it doesn't end there. The ISO C99 standard also introduces 8-digit \U12345678 escapes to cover the entire ISO 10646 character space, and it's also desired that Python 2 support that from the start. But then what are \x escapes supposed to mean? Do they ignore all but the last *eight* hex digits then? And if less than 8 following in a Unicode string, all but the last 4? And if less than 4, all but the last 2? This was getting messier by the minute, and the proposal cuts the Gordian knot by making \x simpler instead of more complicated. Note that the 4-digit generalization to \xijkl in Unicode strings was also redundant, because it meant exactly the same thing as \uijkl in Unicode strings. It's more Pythonic to have just one obvious way to specify a Unicode character via hex notation. Development and Discussion The proposal was worked out among Guido van Rossum, Fredrik Lundh and Tim Peters in email. It was subsequently explained and disussed on Python-Dev under subject "Go \x yourself", starting 2000-08-03. Response was overwhelmingly positive; no objections were raised. Backward Compatibility Changing the meaning of \x escapes does carry risk of breaking existing code, although no instances of incompabitility have yet been discovered. The risk is believed to be minimal. Tim Peters verified that, except for pieces of the standard test suite deliberately provoking end cases, there are no instances of \xabcdef... with fewer or more than 2 hex digits following, in either the Python CVS development tree, or in assorted Python packages sitting on his machine. It's unlikely there are any with fewer than 2, because the Reference Manual implied they weren't legal (although this is debatable!). If there are any with more than 2, Guido is ready to argue they were buggy anyway <0.9 wink>. Guido reported that the O'Reilly Python books *already* document that Python works the proposed way, likely due to their Perl editing heritage (as above, Perl worked (very close to) the proposed way from its start). Finn Bock reported that what JPython does with \x escapes is unpredictable today. This proposal gives a clear meaning that can be consistently and easily implemented across all Python implementations. Effects on Other Tools Believed to be none. The candidates for breakage would mostly be parsing tools, but the author knows of none that worry about the internal structure of Python strings beyond the approximation "when there's a backslash, swallow the next character". Tim Peters checked python-mode.el, the std tokenize.py and pyclbr.py, and the IDLE syntax coloring subsystem, and believes there's no need to change any of them. Tools like tabnanny.py and checkappend.py inherit their immunity from tokenize.py. Reference Implementation The code changes are so simple that a separate patch will not be produced. Fredrik Lundh is writing the code, is an expert in the area, and will simply check the changes in before 2.0b1 is released. BDFL Pronouncements Yes, ValueError, not SyntaxError. "Problems with literal interpretations traditionally raise 'runtime' exceptions rather than syntax errors." Copyright This document has been placed in the public domain.

9 16

This Project Has Not Released Any Files
by Martin v. Loewis 14 Nov '00

14 Nov '00

[Tim Peters] > From BeOpen.com's POV, so long as they were paying major bills, they > would rather have download traffic tickle their ad banners than SF's > ad banners. Even though this should have been clear to me all the time, stating it explicitly triggers alarms for me. I just checked, and it appears that Python 2.0 is not available for download via ftp. In particular, it is not available via ftp from ftp.python.org! If it was there, mirrors all over the world would pick it up and bring it in a location near me (ftp.fu-berlin.de would be nearest) (*). So while making it available on SF may indeed give no advantage, making it available on python.org would provide users with alternative download locations, so that I don't feel the bandwidth limitation that Web download from pythonlabs.com produces. That would be a clear advantage to me, at least. Of course, having ftp mirrors would mean that many downloads do not tickle anybody's ad banners - which would probably be in the interest of other users as well, just not in the interest of BeOpen. So I'm curious how this conflict of interest is resolved... Regards, Martin (*) ftp://ftp.python.org/python/src/README does not even mention Python 2.0, and ftp://ftp.python.org/python/src/README.ftp says Note that some mirrors only collect the this directory (src), and the doc and contrib siblings, while the ftp master site, <URL:ftp://ftp.python.org/>, has much more. "Much more" may be true, just nothing recent... I probably should ask ftpmaster.python.org to put Python-2.0.tar.gz in that directory.

7 9

build problems under Solaris
by Martin v. Loewis 03 Nov '00

03 Nov '00

> I don't have access to a Solaris machine, so I can't do anything to > help these users. The patch in 117606 looks right to me: gcc on Solaris (and on any other platform) needs -shared to build shared library; configure currently passes -G. I haven't actually tried the patch, since it is a pain to extract it from the SF bug report page. What happens is that gcc passes -G to the linker, which correctly produces a shared library. However, gcc also links crt1/crti into the library, which causes the reference to main. 117508 looks like a user error to me. On its own, configure would not try to link -ldb, unless it detects the presence of db.h. My guess is that there is a libdb in /usr/local, so a gcc configure finds it, whereas the native compiler doesn't. Later, the linker even finds a -ldb library, but somehow this doesn't have dbopen. So it could be that the BSDDB installation on that system is screwed. Regards, Martin

2 1

New test_extcall fails on Windows -- elsewhere? Expected? Bug?
by Tim Peters 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

C:\Code\python\dist\src\PCbuild>python ../lib/test/regrtest.py test_extcall test_extcall test test_extcall failed -- Writing: '3', expected: '' 1 test failed: test_extcall C:\Code\python\dist\src\PCbuild>python ../lib/test/regrtest.py -v test_extcall test_extcall test_extcall () {} (1,) {} (1, 2) {} (1, 2, 3) {} (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) {} (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) {} (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) {} (1, 2, 3) {'b': 5, 'a': 4} (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) {'b': 7, 'a': 6} (1, 2, 3, 6, 7) {'y': 5, 'b': 9, 'x': 4, 'a': 8} TypeError: not enough arguments to g(); expected 1, got 0 TypeError: not enough arguments to g(); expected 1, got 0 TypeError: not enough arguments to g(); expected 1, got 0 1 () {} 1 (2,) {} 1 (2, 3) {} 1 (2, 3, 4, 5) {} 0 (1, 2) {} 1 () {'d': 4, 'b': 2, 'c': 3, 'a': 1} {'b': 2, 'c': 3, 'a': 1} {'b': 2, 'c': 3, 'a': 1} keyword parameter 'x' redefined in call to g() keyword parameter 'b' redefined in function call keywords must be strings h() got an unexpected keyword argument 'e' * argument must be a sequence ** argument must be a dictionary 3 512 1 3 3 unbound method must be called with instance as first argument unbound method must be called with instance as first argument 1 test OK.

3 4

Re: Python Call Mechanism ([Python-checkins] CVS: python/dist/src/Python ceval.c,2.212,2.213)
by M.-A. Lemburg 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

Jeremy Hylton wrote: > > Update of /cvsroot/python/python/dist/src/Python > In directory slayer.i.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv32349/Python > > Modified Files: > ceval.c > ... > N.B. The CALL_FUNCTION implementation is getting really hairy; should > review it to see if it can be simplified. How about a complete redesign of the whole call mechanism ?! I have an old patch somewhere which reorganizes the Python calling mechanism into something more sane than what we have in ceval.c now. Should I try to find it for someone to use as basis for the reorg (don't have time for this myself) ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/

2 1

Re: [Python-checkins] CVS: python/dist/src/Python ceval.c,2.212,2.213
by barry＠wooz.org 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

Well, it looks like checkin messages are flowing again. Yay!

1 0

getting at the current frame
by Martin v. Loewis 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

> which actually will look something like this in real code: > > def trade(yours, mine): > print _('if you give me %(yours)s, i will give you %(mine)s') % { > 'yours': yours, > 'mine' : mine, > } > > The string wrapped in _() is what gets translated here. > > Okay, we all know that's a pain, right? What's wrong with def trade(yours, mine): print _('if you give me %(yours)s, i will give you %(mine)s') % vars() Look Ma, no magic! Regards, Martin

2 1

development version of docs online
by Fred L. Drake, Jr. 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

Do people want to be notified when the development copy of the documentation is update? There was a comment from someone that they didn't know where the online copy was. I can send the update notice to python-dev instead of just to myself if everyone wants it, or I can send it to some other (appropriate) list. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs Team Member

3 2

Gradual migration
by Paul Prescod 28 Oct '00

28 Oct '00

Python 3K. It is the repository for our hopes and dreams. We tend to invoke it in three different situations: 1. in delaying discussions of gee-whiz features (e.g. static type checking) 2. in delaying hairy implementation re-factoring that we don't want to undertake right now. 3. in delaying painful backwards-compatibility breakage I think it is somewhat debatable whether we really need to or should do these three things all at once but that's a separate discussion for another day. (the other experiment may inform our decision) I want to focus on "3" -- breakage. Rather than delaying painful backwards-compatibility breakage I thing we should make it less painful. We should decide where we are going long before we ask our users to move there. I think we should start including alternatives to syntaxes and features that we know are broken. Once people move to the alternatives we can "reassign" or remove the original syntax with much less pain. In other words, rather than telling people "here's a new version, your code is broken, sorry." We should tell them: "we're going to break code. Here's an alternative syntax that you can use that will be interpreted the same in the old and new versions -- please move to this new syntax as quickly as possible." I'll outline some examples of the strategy. You may or may not like details of the particular proposals but you might still agree with the strategy. Also, I don't claim that all of the proposals are fully fleshed-out...again, it's the strategy I'm most interested in. I don't even agree with every feature change I describe below -- they are just some I've heard of for Python 3000. In other words ** this is not a design document for Python 3000! ** Separating byte arrays from strings: 1. immediately introduce two new functions: binopen("foo").read() -> byte array stropen("foo","UTF-8".read() -> u"...." 2. warn about string literals that have embedded non-Unicode characters 3. deprecate extension modules that return "old fashioned" string arrays 4. after a period where all strings have been restricted to Unicode-compatibility, merge the Unicode and string types. 5. deprecate the special Unicode u"" syntax as an imperialist anachronism Reclaiming the division operator from truncating integer division: 1. immediately introduce new functions: div() that does division as we wish it was. 2. add a warning mode to Python (long overdue) 3. with the warning mode on, old-fashioned division triggers a deprecation warning. 4. after three years as a warning situation we expect all in-use Python scripts to have been upgraded to use the new operations and to explicitly truncate integer division when that is what is wanted. 5. at that point we can re-assign the division operator to be a floating point division if we wish. Case insensitivity: 1. Warn whenever a module or class has two __dict__ entries that differ only by case 2. Eventually, disallow that form of name-clash altogether 3. After a period, allow case variations to be equivalent. Unifying types and classes (more vague): 1. Add something like extension class to make type subclassing easier. 2. Informally deprecate modules that do not incorporate it. 3. Replace or fix details of the language and implementation that behave differently for types and classes. (e.g. the type() operator) -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by ActiveState consensus Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. - http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html

9 21

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

Python-Dev October 2000