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
-------------------- snip snip --------------------
Title: PEP Purpose and Guidelines
Version: $Revision: 1.36 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2002/07/29 18:34:59 $
Author: Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton
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
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
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 or feature request tracker.
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
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
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
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
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. 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
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.
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.
PEP 9 contains a boilerplate 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
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  for more details.
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  for more information about PEP style
 PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton
If you decide to provide an explicit URL for a PEP, please use
this as the URL template:
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
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 or better yet, the SourceForge patch manager 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
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
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
References and Footnotes
 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
 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
 PEP 9, Sample PEP Template
This document has been placed in the public domain.
> 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
> 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.]
> > 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:
What should this print? the situation leads not to a canonical solution
as class def scopes.
from foo import *
> > 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
> >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 was watching file modification times on my Windows box (strange
hobby, I know :-), and I noticed that after a fresh install of Python,
the .pyc files seem to be written when the first code that imports the
corresponding module runs, rather than all of the .pyc files being
compiled at once by the installer. Wasn't there code in the installer
that precompiles all modules? I know the Unix install does this, and
I vaguely remember that the Windows installer did this too -- or was
it only the Win32all installer??? If there's code to do that in the
Windows installer now, it seems it's not working. If there isn't such
code, perhaps there should be?
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
this is something we discussed with Guido, and also Moshe Zadka at Europython.
Guido thought it seems reasonable enough, if the details can be nailed.
I have written it down so the idea doesn't get lost, for the moment is more a
matter of whether it can get a number, and then it can go dormant for a while.
- * -
Title: Resource-Release Support for Generators
Author: Samuele Pedroni <pedronis(a)python.org>
Type: Standards Track
Generators allow for natural coding and abstraction of traversal
over data. Currently if external resources needing proper timely
release are involved, generators are unfortunately not adequate.
The typical idiom for timely release is not supported, a yield
statement is not allowed in the try clause of a try-finally
statement inside a generator. The finally clause execution cannot
be either guaranteed or enforced.
This PEP proposes that generators support a close method and
destruction semantics, such that the restriction can be lifted,
expanding the applicability of generators.
Python generators allow for natural coding of many data traversal
scenarios Their instantiation produces iterators, i.e. first-class
objects abstracting traversal (with all the advantages of first-
classness). In this respect they match in power and offer some
advantages over the approach using iterator methods taking a
(smalltalkish) block. On the other hand, given current limitations
(no yield allowed in a try clause of a try-finally inside a
generator) the latter approach seems better suited at encapsulating
not only traversal but also exception handling and proper resource
acquisition and release.
Let's consider an example (for simplicity, files in read-mode are
for path in file(index_path,"r"):
for line in file(path.strip(),"r"):
this is short and to the point, but the try-finally for timely
closing of the files cannot be added. (While instead of a path,
a file, whose closing then would be responsibility of the caller,
could be passed in as argument, the same is not applicable for the
files opened depending on the contents of the index).
If we want timely release, we have to sacrifice the simplicity and
directness of the generator-only approach: (e.g.)
self.index_path = index_path
self.index = None
self.document = None
self.index = file(self.index_path,"r")
for path in self.index:
self.document = file(path.strip(),"r")
for line in self.document:
self.document = None
to be used as:
all_lines = AllLines("index.txt")
for line in all_lines:
The more convoluted solution implementing timely release, seems
to offer a precious hint. What we have done is encapsulating our
traversal in an object (iterator) with a close method.
This PEP proposes that generators should grow such a close method
with such semantics that the example could be rewritten as:
index = file(index_path,"r")
for path in file(index_path,"r"):
document = file(path.strip(),"r")
for line in document:
all = all_lines("index.txt")
for line in all:
PEP 255  disallows yield inside a try clause of a try-finally
statement, because the execution of the finally clause cannot be
guaranteed as required by try-finally semantics. The semantics of
the proposed close method should be such, that while the finally
clause execution still cannot be guaranteed, it can be enforced
when required. The semantics of generator destruction on the
other hand should be extended in order to implement a best-effort
policy for the general case. This strikes as a reasonable
compromise, the resulting global behavior being similar to that of
files and closing.
A close() method should be implemented for generator objects.
1) If a generator is already terminated, close should be a no-op.
Otherwise: (two alternative solutions)
(Return Semantics) The generator should be resumed, generator
execution should continue as if the instruction at re-entry point
is a return. Consequently finally clauses surrounding the re-entry
point would be executed, in the case of a then allowed
Issues: is it important to be able to distinguish forced
termination by close, normal termination, exception propagation
from generator or generator-called code? In the normal case it
seems not, finally clauses should be there to work the same in
all these cases, still this semantics could make such a distinction
Except-clauses, like by a normal return, are not executed, such
clauses in legacy generators expect to be executed for exceptions
raised by the generator or by code called from it. Not executing
them in the close case seems correct.
OR (Exception Semantics) The generator should be resumed and
execution should continue as if a special-purpose exception
(e.g. CloseGenerator) has been raised at re-entry point. Close
implementation should consume and not propagate further
Issues: should StopIteration be reused for this purpose? Probably
not. We would like close to be a harmless operation for legacy
generators, which could contain code catching StopIteration to deal
with other generators/iterators.
In general, with exception semantics, it is unclear what to do
if the generator does not terminate or we do not receive the
special exception propagated back. Other different exceptions
should probably be propagated, but consider this possible legacy
except: # or except Exception:, etc
If close is invoked with the generator suspended after the
yield, the except clause would catch our special purpose
exception, so we would get a different exception propagated
back, which in this case ought to be reasonably consumed
and ignored but in general should be propagated, but separating
these scenarios seem hard.
The exception approach has the advantage to let the generator
distinguish between termination cases and have more control.
On the other hand clear-cut semantics seem harder to define.
2) Generator destruction should invoke close method behavior.
If this proposal is accepted, it should become common practice
to document whether a generator acquires resources, so that its
close method ought to be called. If a generator is no longer
used, calling close should be harmless.
On the other hand, in the typical scenario the code that
instantiated the generator should call close if required by it,
generic code dealing with iterators/generators instantiated
elsewhere should typically not be littered with close calls.
The rare case of code that has acquired ownership of and need to
properly deal with all of iterators, generators and generators
acquiring resources that need timely release, is easily solved:
Definitive semantics ought to be chosen, implementation issues
should be explored.
The idea that the yield placement limitation should be removed
and that generator destruction should trigger execution of finally
clauses has been proposed more than once. Alone it cannot
guarantee that timely release of resources acquired by a generator
can be enforced.
PEP 288  proposes a more general solution, allowing custom
exception passing to generators.
 PEP 255 Simple Generators
 PEP 288 Generators Attributes and Exceptions
This document has been placed in the public domain.
So, in an attempt to garner comments (now that we have 2.3 off the
chopping block) I'm reposting my PEP proposal (with minor updates).
Comments would be appreciated, of course (nudges Barry slightly after
him getting me to write this on my only free Sunday in months ;)
Title: Be Honest about LC_NUMERIC (to the C library)
Version: $Revision: 1.9 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2002/08/26 16:29:31 $
Author: Christian R. Reis <kiko at async.com.br>
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/plain <pep-xxxx.html>
Support in Python for the LC_NUMERIC locale category is currently
implemented only in Python-space, which causes inconsistent behavior
and thread-safety issues for applications that use extension modules
and libraries implemented in C. This document proposes a plan for
removing this inconsistency by providing and using substitute
locale-agnostic functions as necessary.
Python currently provides generic localization services through the
locale module, which among other things allows localizing the
display and conversion process of numeric types. Locale categories,
such as LC_TIME and LC_COLLATE, allow configuring precisely what
aspects of the application are to be localized.
The LC_NUMERIC category specifies formatting for non-monetary
numeric information, such as the decimal separator in float and
fixed-precision numbers. Localization of the LC_NUMERIC category is
currently implemented in only in Python-space; the C libraries are
unaware of the application's LC_NUMERIC setting. This is done to
avoid changing the behavior of certain low-level functions that are
used by the Python parser and related code .
However, this presents a problem for extension modules that wrap C
libraries; applications that use these extension modules will
inconsistently display and convert numeric values.
James Henstridge, the author of PyGTK , has additionally pointed
out that the setlocale() function also presents thread-safety
issues, since a thread may call the C library setlocale() outside of
the GIL, and cause Python to function incorrectly.
The inconsistency between Python and C library localization for
LC_NUMERIC is a problem for any localized application using C
extensions. The exact nature of the problem will vary depending on
the application, but it will most likely occur when parsing or
formatting a numeric value.
The initial problem that motivated this PEP is related to the
GtkSpinButton  widget in the GTK+ UI toolkit, wrapped by PyGTK.
The widget can be set to numeric mode, and when this occurs,
characters typed into it are evaluated as a number.
Because LC_NUMERIC is not set in libc, float values are displayed
incorrectly, and it is impossible to enter values using the
localized decimal separator (for instance, `,' for the Brazilian
locale pt_BR). This small example demonstrates reduced usability
for localized applications using this toolkit when coded in Python.
Martin v. Löwis commented on the initial constraints for an
acceptable solution to the problem on python-dev:
- LC_NUMERIC can be set at the C library level without breaking
- float() and str() stay locale-unaware.
The following seems to be the current practice:
- locale-aware str() and float() [XXX: atof(), currently?]
stay in the locale module.
An analysis of the Python source suggests that the following
functions currently depend on LC_NUMERIC being set to the C locale:
[XXX: still need to check if any other occurrences exist]
The proposed approach is to implement LC_NUMERIC-agnostic functions
for converting from (strtod()/atof()) and to (snprintf()) float
formats, using these functions where the formatting should not vary
according to the user-specified locale.
This change should also solve the aforementioned thread-safety
Potential Code Contributions
This problem was initially reported as a problem in the GTK+
libraries ; since then it has been correctly diagnosed as an
inconsistency in Python's implementation. However, in a fortunate
coincidence, the glib library implements a number of
LC_NUMERIC-agnostic functions (for an example, see ) for reasons
similar to those presented in this paper. In the same GTK+ problem
report, Havoc Pennington has suggested that the glib authors would
be willing to contribute this code to the PSF, which would simplify
implementation of this PEP considerably.
[I'm checking if Alex Larsson is willing to sign the PSF
contributor agreement  to make sure the code is safe to
integrate; XXX: what would be necessary to sign here?]
There may be cross-platform issues with the provided locale-agnostic
functions. This needs to be tested further.
Martin has pointed out potential copyright problems with the
contributed code. I believe we will have no problems in this area as
members of the GTK+ and glib teams have said they are fine with
relicensing the code.
An implementation is being developed by Gustavo Carneiro
<gjc at inescporto.pt>. It is currently attached to Sourceforge.net
bug 744665 
[XXX: The SF.net tracker is horrible 8(]
 PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton
 Python locale documentation for embedding,
 PyGTK homepage, http://www.daa.com.au/~james/pygtk/
 GtkSpinButton screenshot (demonstrating problem),
 GNOME bug report, http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114132
 Code submission of g_ascii_strtod and g_ascii_dtostr (later
renamed g_ascii_formatd) by Alex Larsson,
 PSF Contributor Agreement,
 Python bug report, http://www.python.org/sf/774665
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Christian Reis, Senior Engineer, Async Open Source, Brazil.
http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 261 2331 | NMFL
I've been working on a set of Python tools that use readline, but want to
keep history separate between different interaction modes. Unfortunately,
this really needs to be able to access readline's clear_history(), as
read_history_file() leaves existing history intact.
I'd be happy to whip up a patch to add this (as readline.clear_history()),
but I was wondering if perhaps the reason it's not currently exported by
the readline module is a compatibility issue for older readline
implementations that are officially supported. Thanks.
Over in the spambayes project, we get reports of database corruption from
people using Sleepycat bsddb. The most recent comment on a bug report is
Date: 2003-08-18 04:09
i did some experimenting with various bsddb3 versions:
- with db-3.3.11 the python segfaults and core is dumped
- with db-3.2.9 the database is corrupted
- with db-4.1.25 everything works as it should (no db corruption)
spambayes makes elementary use of a Berkeley DB, just accessing via the dict
interface -- inserts, deletes and lookups, but no cursors, no transactions,
I don't have time to dig into this, but assuming the report is correct, how
can we "encourage" Unix weenies to use db-4.1.25? (On Windows, db-4.1.25 is
shipped with the installer.) If the problems with older versions are so
severe, maybe the Python wrapper should do a version check and refuse to run
if it finds an old version?
> So when the marshalled representation of 0.001 is loaded under
> "german" LC_NUMERIC here, we get back exactly 0.0. I'm not
> sure why.
When I call "marshal.dumps(0.1)" from AsyncDialog (or anywhere in the
Outlook code) I get "f\x030.0", which fits with what you have.
> So the obvious <wink> answers are:
(Glad you posted this - I was wading through the progress of marshalling
(PyOS_snprintf etc) and getting rapidly lost).
> 1. When LC_NUMERIC is "german", MS C's atof() stops at the first
> period it sees.
This is the case:
f = atof("0.1");
Gives me with gcc version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease):
Gives me with Microsoft C++ Builder (I don't have Visual C++ handy, but
I suppose it would be the same):
The help file for Builder does say that this is the correct behaviour -
it will stop when it finds an unrecognised character - here '.' is
unrecognised (because we are in German), so it stops.
Does this then mean that this is a Python bug? Or because Python tells
us not to change the c locale and we (Outlook) are, it's our
Presumably what we'll have to do for a solution is just what Mark is
doing now - find the correct place to put a call that (re)sets the c
locale to English.
I am building Python 2.3 in an heterogenous environment where I want
all of the platform-independent code to be shared and the platform
specific code kept segregated. In particular I have a structure like
for the platform independent files, and
for platform-specific directories and files (bin/, include/, and lib/).
Getting this to work is easily accomplished with --prefix and
--exec-prefix when running configure on each platform:
These builds are put under source control and are read-only once they
are checked in. Hence the problem:
If /foo/bar/python/include and its contents are read-only then
following installs fail to put pyconfig.h (a platform-dependent file)
into the platform-specific include directory because the
$(INSTALL_DATA) in the 'inclinstall' target fails and the final line
in that target (to install pyconfig.h) never runs.
Clear as mud?
The main thing I want to do is avoid reinstalling the shared files
after the first time, since I'm building this on many different
My proposed solution to this is to move the $(INSTALL_DATA) for
pyconfig.h from the bottom of the inclinstall target to before the
loop that installs the shared headers. Then that step will succeed and
it doesn't matter whether or not the other INSTALL_DATA calls
fail. Make sense?
This begs another install target, which just installs the items that
end up in the exec-prefix directories. Then on each platform I can
just install the platform-specific code.
Thanks in advance,
Tom Emerson Basis Technology Corp.
Software Architect http://www.basistech.com
"Beware the lollipop of mediocrity: lick it once and you suck forever"