Python-Dev September 2002

python-dev@python.org

89 participants
129 discussions

Re: [Python-Dev] ATTENTION! Releasing Python 2.2.2 in a few weeks
by Michael Hudson 30 Sep '02

30 Sep '02

Guido van Rossum <guido(a)python.org> writes: > > > I'd like to release something called Python 2.2.2 in a few weeks (say, > > > around Oct 8; I like Tuesday release dates). > > > > One minor point of concern: I think Jack Jansen's on holiday. Perhaps > > we should wait for him to get back... > > He should be back by Oct 5 or 6 if what he told me of his schedule is > true. I'm not sure that it would matter much if MacPython 2.2.2 was > released a week after the main release. Maybe we should do one > release candidate anyway and give him space that way. OK, if you knew about this, then I'll assume you have it in hand... Cheers, M. -- Java is a WORA language! (Write Once, Run Away) -- James Vandenberg (on progstone(a)egroups.com) & quoted by David Rush on comp.lang.scheme

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] proposal for interfaces
by Esteban U.C.. Castro 30 Sep '02

30 Sep '02

Hi, I have just joined python-dev and I saw your very interesting proposal for implementing intefaces. > I have an idea for an interface mechnism for Python, and I'd like to see if > anyone likes it before writing an actual PEP. [...] I like it a lot! Anyway, if it can be implemented in python as is, what is the point of the PEP? Making the 'interface' root class and/or InterfaceError builtins, maybe? I have some comments which I thought I would bounce. I'll organize these attending to the activities they relate to. Don't hesitate to tell me if I'm sayig something stupid. :) Define an interface =================== In your example, it seems that class Foo(interface): def default_foo(self, a, b): "Docstring for foo method." print "Defaults can be handy." [I added the a, b arguments to illustrate one point below] Does the following: - Defines the requirement that all objects that implement Foo have a foo function - Defines that foo should accept arguments of the form (a, b) maybe? - Sets a doc string for the foo method. - Sets a default implementation for the method. Some questions on this: - Can an interface only define method names (and maybe argument formats)? I think it would be handy to let it expose attributes. - Is method names (and maybe format of arguments) the only thing you can 'promise' in the interface? In other words, is that the only type of guarantee that code that works against the interface can get? I think a __check__(self, obj) special method in interfaces would be a simple way to boost their flexibility. - For the uses you have given to the prefix_methodname notation so far, I don't think it's really needed. Isn't the following sufficient? class Foo(interface): def foo(self, a, b): "foo docstring" # nothing here; no default definition def bar(self, a, b): pass # no docstring, _empty definition_ This has the side effect that a method with no default definition and no doc string is a SyntaxError. Is this too bad? - It would maybe be hard to figure out what such a method is supposed to do, so you _should_ provide a docstring. - If you're in a hurry, an empty docstring will do the trick. While in 'quick and dirty mode' you probably won't be using interfaces a lot, anyway. Defaults look indeed useful, but the really crucial aspect to lay down in an interface definition is what does it guarantee on the objects that implement it. If amalgamating this with default defs would otherwise obscure it (there's another issue I'm addressing below), I think defaults belong more properly to a class that implements the interface, not to the interface definition itself. I guess knowing what other uses you have in mind for the prefix_methodname notation could be useful to decide whether it's warranted. Check whether an object implements an interface ===============================================

3 2

proposal for interfaces (errata)
by Esteban U.C.. Castro 29 Sep '02

29 Sep '02

g_f should be i2f. SPAM END :) ___________ Method renaming: ---------------- class I1(interface): def f(self): "" class I2(interface): def f(self, a, r, g, s): "" class SomeClass: def i_f(self): pass i1f.__implements__ = I1.f def g_f(self, a, r, g, s): pass i2f.__implements__ = I2.f [Note: if 'implements' is introduced as a keyword, as in the PEP, we=20 could just as well declare def g_f(self, a, r, g, s) implements I2.f: ... ]

1 0

bad formatting
by Esteban U.C.. Castro 29 Sep '02

29 Sep '02

Sorry again. Anyone knows of a 'sandbox' mailing list where I could experiment to fix the formatting problems?

1 0

proposal for interfaces
by Esteban U.C.. Castro 29 Sep '02

29 Sep '02

Thanks for your reply-- and thanks for taking the work of fixing the formatting in the quotations. I thought it would maybe be considered spam to send the message again just to fix the mess. (I think I know what caused the problem last time; I hope this one reads fine). Is there some sort of policy on this? > Well, aside from the ego boost of having my very own PEP, I think the > nature of interfaces is such that they're vastly more useful if lots > of people use them. Putting something in the standard distribution > almost guarantees that. Agreed. I was just curious about what is exactly that _something_ you want to put in the standard distribution. Just a recommendation on the docs? Have some of the existing modules refactored to use this method? [P.S.: I'm afraid your ego will have to give up on having your own interfaces PEP, since there is already one. See below.] I don't know if there are precedents of code practices being 'officially' endorsed by the python development team, when it implies no changes to either the language or the standard library. To start with a non-intrusive addition, I can think of a module defining precisely the interfaces of builtin types, and other commonplace de facto interfaces that already exist in the standard library. Imagine you want to use a function that takes a builtin type, but you want to pass your own fake instance. Making it just inherit the builtin type is an option, but maybe that's not practical, or yours is, too, a type not implemented in python, or you don't want to inherit the behavior of the builtin type. Having the interface formalized somewhere will help you know what will be expected from your custom object. Most 'interfaces' in standard python libraries (eg. iterable, iterator, stream...). are really simple, and it has worked quite well to have them as just de facto. I think code checking for an interface would be more expressive than code checking for method names or just trying to use the object and catch exceptions (you can still do this for other reasons if you want). The latter also relies on everyone knowing and agreeing on what makes an int an int, and a list a list. Now, many functions take lists, but only use a subset of the list interface. It would be handy if common subsets of (e.g.) the list interface could be identified and formalized in a standard module. We could define a SimpleReadList that would only guarantee getting items by index, a SliceRWDList() that would guarantee index and slice getting, setting, and deletion, and the complete List interface with all the append, insert, sort methods. [Note: of course it wouldn't be done like this, but I don't have a good idea of what are the most commonly used subsets of the list interface. Names ugly on purpose, so you won't take them seriously :).] This is also and example of why I see the usefulness or implicit interface satisfaction. This way interface definitions can have 'retroactive' effect, so you don't have to mess with the builtin types at all, in order to define how they interact with other objects (this is, to define and use their interfaces). > As much as I love Python, sometimes I really miss the rigor of more > stongly-typed languages, so rather than trying to make something > very Pythonic, I've tried to go the opposite direction in order to > complent what's there already. It looks like you are not alone in this-- or at least others have been where you are. You may want to take a look at the homepage for this (retired) Special Interest Group: http://www.python.org/sigs/types-sig/ While looking for this, I found a PEP, proposed by this group, which addresses interfaces too: http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0245.html I think there's a point in continuing this discussion though, as > Dissenting Opinion > This PEP has not yet been discussed on python-dev. If this is not a good time/place to talk about this, I guess we'll be warned :). I got a strong deja-vu reading this PEP. It matches so closely some of the changes I proposed to your model, that I must have read it long ago and then forgotten about it. Still, this suffers from some statically-typed background and may have the problems I pointed about your proposal; it seems to limit itself to the functionality and needs of Java interfaces (the only example I am more or less familiar with). Since there is a group effort behind it, I guess they have taken this into account and still agreed on this solution for some reason; I haven't looked at the archives yet. Also, this PEP is less shy about proposing changes to the language itself. This is maybe a good idea; if one of the important features for the usefulness of interfaces is that they will be widely used, it would help if there was only one universally accepted way to use them. Endorsing one such way in the language itself should help. > Actually I wanted to have attributes, too (and operators, since they're > just methods). This brings up one of the uses I had in mind for the > prefixes in front of the method names. To add a property, you could do > something like this: > > doc_myProperty = "docstring for myproperty" > readonly_myOtherProperty = "docstring for a read-only property" > writeonly_myLastProperty = "docstring for write-only property" Again, why not just: # name access docstring myProperty = "rw", "docstring for myProperty" myOtherProperty = "r", "docstring for a read-only property" myLastProperty = "w", "docstring for write-only property" > This would require implementions to either have properties named > "myProperty", "myOtherProperty" and "myLastProperty", or define methods > named __get__myProperty, __set__myProperty, __get__myOtherProperty, and > __set__myLastProperty. It could just require that implementations can be called getattr and/or setattr (depending on the access declared). There is the problem to check setattr non-destructively when the object is read-only. Maybe this is an issue somewhere else too? I wish this can be solved to keep the syntax as simple as possible. > Something I didn't include in the original message was the > design-by-contract feature, which would allow pre- and postconditions to > be specified for any method, like this: > > def check_foo(self, a, b): > "docstring for foo" > if not (some precondition for foo): > raise ExceptionOfYourChoice > if not (some other precondition for foo): > raise DifferentExceptionOfYourChoice > return lambda result: (postconditions of foo) # optional I think the ability to set attributes on python functions, or builtin properties (I'd have to refresh my memory on these :) could be used for this. Either way, the syntax for the client user could be something like: class SomeInterface(interface): def foo(self, a, b): "foo doc" def bar(self, a, b): "bar doc" foo.__pre__ = some_checking_func # takes a, b, raises something if # they're wrong foo.__post__ = other_checking_func # takes the return value, makes sure # it's not broken bar.__around__ = yet_another_checking_func # this is called _instead_ of # the function, and _should_ # call the function in turn This makes it more explicit that __pre__, __post__ and/or __around__ are something that relates to foo in some way. Your second approach (bar, __default__bar) comes closer to this, and it may be more convenient than first defining the function, then assigning it. Having part of the name of an object have an special meaning is convenient but a bit hacky. I myself do it often, but I don't think I'd propose a standard based on that. A matter of personal taste, I guess. >> - For the uses you have given to the prefix_methodname notation so far, >> I don't think it's really needed. Isn't the following sufficient? >> >> class Foo(interface): >> def foo(self, a, b): >> "foo docstring" >> # nothing here; no default definition >> def bar(self, a, b): >> pass # no docstring, _empty definition_ > > Not IMHO, since I'd want methods with no implementation to raise > NotImplementedError instead of silently returning None. One this that > *could* be done to make the the simplest case (just a docstring?) > easier (and make the syntax look more Pythonic) would be this: The absence of 'pass' in an interface method (in foo) would be considered absence of any default implementation and therefore you'd get an InterfaceError when trying to validate/get proxy on the object if it doesn't implement that method. In second thought, I admit this is dirty, and I don't know if this magic is even possible. A more explicit approach could be: class Foo(interface): def foo(self, a, b): "foo docstring" raise NotImplementedError def bar(self, a, b): pass # no docstring, _empty definition_ Or, for consistency with the proposal above (and with the existing PEP): class Foo(interface): def foo(self, a, b): "foo docstring" # no definition allowed here, sorry def bar(self, a, b): "" # empty docstring required at the very least bar.__default__ = lambda a, b: None Now that I think about it, the __underscores__ could maybe be taken out for interface method special attributes. They remind us that we are looking at magic stuff that the 'system' will be using in special ways, but if you are not expected to assign arbitrary attributes to interface methods, then there is no ambiguity. Aesthetic choice, again. > I got the idea of defaults from Haskell, where it's common to see an > interface define methods with mutually recursive default definitions, > kind of like (to use a somewhat silly Python example) defining __eq__, > __ne__, __cmp__, etc. all in terms of one another and expecting > implementations to define enough of the methods that everything works. I like it! :) I may be being too purist at this, but I still think that doesn't belong in the interface definition. I admit putting defaults there is convenient, but I wish we could find a solution that is both convenient and keeps implementation details out of the interface definition. Although the existing interface PEP stresses the separation between interface and class, it provides one possible solution for this: it talks about a deferred() method (in interfaces) that will return a class that implements the interface. In the PEP, it seems this is only meant to provide error reporting, but I guess it could be put to good use in other ways. I admit I don't understand the 'deferred' name :), I'm not sure how that default class would be defined, and whether it is intended to be customizable in the PEP. Having a convenient, standard way to define a default class and associate it with an interface without looking like something intrinsic to it, _that_ would be, IMHO, the ideal solution. >> In your example: >> >> def foo_proc(foo_arg): >> foo_proxy = Foo(foo_arg) >> ... >> x = foo_proxy.foo(a, b) >> >> [added a, b again] >> >> imagine foo_proc may only really cares that foo_arg is an object that >> has a foo() method that takes (a, b) arguments (this is all Foo >> guarantees). > > Here's where my compiled language bias comes in. If you only care the > foo_arg has a certain method, you don't want to use interfaces at all. > Using the interface doesn't just imply that foo_arg has a method named > foo, but also that the method satisfies the requirements laid out in the > interface definition. I agree; this case was only simplified for the sake of exposition. The point here is that the requirements laid out in the interface definition may possibly be checked on objects (as opposed to classes), at runtime (as opposed to, um, import-time :). If you really want to check the class you can do so in one specific interface. If you don't want the overhead of checking every time, and you know you won't be messing with class instances or objects, you may either check by class, or maybe even cache the results of checking on classes/objects. >> In the second case, if someone has been fiddling with foo_arg or some >> of its base classes, foo_arg.foo() may no longer exist or it may have >> a different signature. > > You can't really stop people from shooting themselves in the foot. > Making methods disappear is black magic in my book. Very true. This is of course no crucial point. Still, since method calls are always late-bound I think it only makes sense that restrictions on them _can_, at least, be late-checked. >> * I agree the declaration had better be included in the class >> definition, at least as an option. > > I agree, but as an option. The __implements__ alternative lets you fiddle with interfaces outside the class too: # SomeClass itself defined elsewhere SomeClass.__implements__ += (Foo,) All in all, the syntax I like the most so far is the one described in the existing PEP. >> * Declarative better than procedural, for this purpose. > > Whether this is declarative of procedural is mostly a matter of > perpective, IMHO. In my imagination, calls to bind occur only at the > module level, and almost always immediately after the class or interface > definition, so the "flavor" is declarative. You're right; an assignment is just as procedural as a function call. It was very personal aesthetic appreciation again; a function call looks more like it's "doing" something, to me. But that is very arguable. >> * Only classes (not instances) can declare that they implement an >> interface. > > Maybe there should be something like a "bindinstance" method as well. > I'm sure there's a way to do it, but I don't consider it a very high > priority. Me neither. I think declaration would typically be done in a per class, not per instance, basis. Still, due to the nature of python it is the instance (the object, really) who implements (or fails to) the interface. So I would add it, for completeness and to reflect this, *if* it would not require any specific syntax or additional complication. I think the way __implements__ would be searched would be natural for python users, since it is consistent with what is being done for __dict__, for example. > Good ideas. Your method has a lot of advantages, but it would be hard > (and messy) to make it do everything you can do with seprarate method > calls, and one thing I'm *very* reluctant to do is have two ways of > doing everything with only subtle or stylistic differences between them. I agree there should not be two ways. :> > The best thing to do here may be to allow your style for simple cases > (the 90% that would have required only a single "bind" call), but > use the method-based syntax for anything more elaborate, like method > renaming and unbinding subclasses. Method renaming and unbinding subclasses are supported in the alternative and rather easy; I guess the weird formatting obscured this :). Method renaming: ================ class I1(interface): def f(self): "" class I2(interface): def f(self, a, r, g, s): "" class SomeClass: def i_f(self): pass i1f.__implements__ = I1.f def g_f(self, a, r, g, s): pass i2f.__implements__ = I2.f [Note: if 'implements' is introduced as a keyword, as in the PEP, we could just as well declare def g_f(self, a, r, g, s) implements I2.f: ... ] Unbinding subclasses: ===================== class I1(interface): ... class I2interface): ... class Base: __implements__ = (I1, I2) class Sub(Base): # it would be more pretty to say (not I2,), but it would involve # some language hacking I guess, while (-I2,) only requires to # override __neg__ in the interface __implements__ = (-I2,) >> [using proxies] should be optional too, but your syntax does this >> nicely; you can call Foo() as an assertion of sorts and ignore the >> result. > > I think it would be very misleading to require than an object support a > formal interface but then expect it to also support methods not > specified in the interface. If this is what you want, the right thing > to do is derive a new interface from the old one that has the extra > functionality you need. As you pointed out, in the real world you won't be defining interfaces for very simple things like "has a write() method". This means, you may still want to use other forms of validation, or do without validation at all (for aspects of the code which are still in experimental phase, for example). You may even use the interface more informally as a mere sanity check. Anyway, method redirection almost enforces that the interface-specific functionality of an object be accessed through a proxy. Doing so looks like the right think to do anyway, so I don't consider this unfortunate at all. I like the proxy idea and the syntax you propose for it. The iterator example was a nice read, anyway :). Was this a typo? class Iterator(Iterable): Meant class Iterator(interface): ? As a conclussion, I am glad about the stress, in python, to generally make things easier for you, rather than paternalistically try to keep you from doing the evil. Since I came from Java, it took a bit using to, but I have seen python scaling nicely to rather big sized projects without this becoming a serious issue. I think there is a point to standardize and automate type checking in python, but I believe it can and should be done without betraying this philosophy. Enough ranting for today! :) Esteban.

1 0

(ad)Strong WebRobot/eMailId Collector: Free Download !
by herald＠ns1.nabitel.com 29 Sep '02

29 Sep '02

Sorry for interrupting you - click refuse <mailto:mailer@ns1.nabitel.com> for no more mail... 　 - Welcome to NabiTel's <http://www.nabitel.com/English.asp> software products and portal services - Software Products <http://www.Nabitel.com/English.asp> Web Robot: also called web spider or web crawler, collects useful web page informations by navigating world wide web sites. Download free trial version now ! <http://www.nabitel.com/English.asp> <http://www.Nabitel.com/English.asp> eMail ID Collector: Collects email ids publicly opened on various web pages, with good intention. Download free trial version now ! <http://www.nabitel.com/English.asp> Portal Services <http://www.nabitel.com/English.asp> Web Portal: Do you have your own home page and want to broadcast it all over the world ? Register your home page to NabiTel Portal Now !! (nabi=a butterfly) Register your home page now, it's free ! <http://www.nabitel.com/English.asp> <http://www.AllThatCars.com/English.asp> Automobiles: Do you want to sell or buy automobiles ? Cars, trucks, limos, airplanes, ships,.... All That Cars are here ! Register your vehicles now, it's free ! <http://www.AllThatCars.com/English.asp> <http://www.AllThatComputers.Com> Computers: Do you want to sell or buy computers ? PCs, printers, scanners, servers, mainframes, .... All That Computers are here ! Register your computers now, it's free ! <http://www.AllThatComputers.com/English.asp> <http://www.AllThatFoods.Com/English.asp> Food & Restaurants: Are you seeking for a nice place to eat ? Or do you run a restaurant ? Foods of the world, restaurants of the world, .... All That Foods are here ! Register your restaurant now, it's free ! <http://www.AllThatFoods.com/English.asp> Have a nice day. Thank you.

1 0

Extension module difficulty w/pgen.
by Jonathan Riehl 29 Sep '02

29 Sep '02

Hi all, I know this is what I get for trying to integrate pgen into an extension module: I can't get it to link properly. I first saw the following problem on a FreeBSD box. Now, I have the following two external dependencies in my extension module (.../src/Modules/pgenmodule.c): extern grammar * _Py_pgen (node * n); extern grammar * _Py_meta_grammar (void); I added an entry to setup.py for it: exts.append( Extension('pgen', ['pgenmodule.c'])) Now when I run make, the extension module is not built, with the system complaining about being unable to resolve "_Py_meta_grammar", but not "_Py_pgen". When I run nm, I can see both symbols in libpython.2.3.a (these symbols are in pgen.c and metagrammar.c, both of which have been added to the libpython build target): ~/cvs/python/dist/src> nm ./libpython2.3.a | grep _Py_pgen [26] | 2676| 48|FUNC |GLOB |0 |2 |_Py_pgen ~/cvs/python/dist/src> nm ./libpython2.3.a | grep _Py_meta [36] | 0| 12|FUNC |GLOB |0 |2 |_Py_meta_grammar On the FreeBSD box, I was able to add "-L. -lpython2.3" to the command line, and this builds. However, when I use this hack on a Solaris platform, it complains about being unable to reserve a text offset for most if not all of the symbols in libpython. It seems to me that I should not have to use this workaround, which only works on one of the systems I use. Does anyone have an idea as to what I should do now? I am a bit confused by this, since Fred Drake's parser extension does not require any of this wackiness. As an aside, the code for the modules I am working on and the diffs are on Sourceforge (PEP 269 implementation), so you can play too, if so inclined. Thanks! -Jon

3 5

Re: FYI (was: watching mutables?)
by Samuele Pedroni 29 Sep '02

29 Sep '02

"Jiba" <jiba(a)tuxfamily.org> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3d96f25a$0$498$7a628cd7@news.club-internet.fr... > > Try EditObj (http://oomadness.tuxfamily.org/en/editobj) and look at the > module editobj.eventobj. > > It does exactely what you need, but it is quite a hack... FYI in Python 2.3: __class__ will be immutable for builtin types, and only mutable for (user) subtypes. See: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2002-August/028681.html regards.

1 0

buitlins instance have modifiable __class__?
by Samuele Pedroni 29 Sep '02

29 Sep '02

question on bultin types (under 2.2): >>> d={} >>> class ndict(dict): ... __slots__ = () ... def __getitem__(self,k): ... print "__getitem__" ... return dict.__getitem__(self,k) ... >>> d.items() [] >>> d['a']=3 >>> d.__class__=ndict is intended to work? it seems it does, but is that the intention? >>> d['a'] __getitem__ 3 [ >>> exec "print a" in d 3 Ok, that is the non cooperative behavior I already know about. ] Thanks.

2 4

Weekly Python Bug/Patch Summary
by Skip Montanaro 29 Sep '02

29 Sep '02

Bug/Patch Summary ----------------- 290 open / 2889 total bugs (+5) 109 open / 1709 total patches (+3) New Bugs -------- property missing doc'd __name__ attr (2002-09-22) http://python.org/sf/612969 memory leaks when importing posix module (2002-09-23) http://python.org/sf/613222 win32 build_ext problem (2002-09-24) http://python.org/sf/614051 fpectl module broken on Linux (2002-09-24) http://python.org/sf/614060 Rewrite _reduce and _reconstructor in C (2002-09-25) http://python.org/sf/614555 LookupError etc. need API to get the key (2002-09-25) http://python.org/sf/614557 gethostbyname() blocks when threaded (2002-09-25) http://python.org/sf/614791 broken link in documentation (2002-09-25) http://python.org/sf/614821 socket.getfqdn() doesn't on Windows (2002-09-27) http://python.org/sf/615472 No __mod__ on str subclass (2002-09-27) http://python.org/sf/615506 Tkinter.Misc has no __contains__ method (2002-09-27) http://python.org/sf/615772 getdefaultlocale failure on OS X (2002-09-28) http://python.org/sf/616002 cPickle documentation incomplete (2002-09-28) http://python.org/sf/616013 list(xrange(sys.maxint / 4)) -> swapping (2002-09-28) http://python.org/sf/616019 New Patches ----------- koi8_u codec (2002-09-23) http://python.org/sf/613173 add unescape method to xml.sax.saxutils (2002-09-23) http://python.org/sf/613256 rm email package dependency on rfc822.py (2002-09-23) http://python.org/sf/613434 Bugfix: content-type header parsing (2002-09-23) http://python.org/sf/613605 OpenVMS patches (2002-09-24) http://python.org/sf/614055 fix for urllib2.AbstractBasicAuthHandler (2002-09-25) http://python.org/sf/614596 MSVC 7.0 compiler support (2002-09-25) http://python.org/sf/614770 build fixes for SCO (2002-09-26) http://python.org/sf/615069 acconfig.h out of date (2002-09-26) http://python.org/sf/615343 Closed Bugs ----------- New features need syntax (2001-08-17) http://python.org/sf/452222 ConfigParser has_option case sensitive (2002-05-29) http://python.org/sf/561822 resize readonly memory mapped file (2002-07-05) http://python.org/sf/577782 ConfigParser spaces in keys not read (2002-07-18) http://python.org/sf/583248 exec*() doesn't handle errors well (2002-08-20) http://python.org/sf/597797 Lone surrogates cause bad .pyc files (2002-09-17) http://python.org/sf/610783 2 bugs in turtle.py (2002-09-21) http://python.org/sf/612595 Closed Patches -------------- pyport.h, Wince and errno getter/setter (2002-01-19) http://python.org/sf/505846 Fix "file:" URL to have right no. of /'s (2002-08-06) http://python.org/sf/591713 bugfixes and cleanup for _strptime.py (2002-08-10) http://python.org/sf/593560 turtle tracer bugfixes and new functions (2002-08-14) http://python.org/sf/595111 select problems on Windows (2002-09-19) http://python.org/sf/611464 quietly select between 'less' and 'more' (2002-09-20) http://python.org/sf/612111

1 0

2023

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 September 2002