Mailman 3 November 2009 - Python-Dev

Is this a bug of the HTMLParser?
by Zhang Chiyuan Nov. 12, 2009

Nov. 12, 2009

Hi all, I'm using BeautifulSoup to parsing an HTML page and find it refused to parse the page. By looking at the backtrace, I found it is a problem with the python built-in HTMLParser.py. In fact, the web page I'm parsing is with some Chinese characters. there is a tag like <img src=/foo/bar.png alt=中文> , note this is legacy html page where the attributes are not quoted. However, the regexp defined in HTMLParser.py is : attrfind = re.compile( r'\s*([a-zA-Z_][-.:a-zA-Z_0-9]*)(\s*=\… [View More]

2 2

2.7/3.2 release schedule
by Benjamin Peterson Nov. 11, 2009

Nov. 11, 2009

I've updated PEP 373 with my proposed release schedule: - 2.7/3.2 alpha 1 2009-12-05 - 2.7/3.2 alpha 2 2010-01-09 - 2.7/3.2 alpha 3 2010-02-06 - 2.7/3.2 alpha 4 2010-03-06 - 2.7/3.2 beta 1 2010-04-03 - 2.7/3.2 beta 2 2010-05-01 - 2.7/3.2 rc1 2010-05-29 - 2.7/3.2 rc2 2010-06-12 - 2.7/3.2 final 2010-06-26 -- Regards, Benjamin

8 15

IDLE as default Python editor (Was: [pygame] Python IDE for windoz)
by anatoly techtonik Nov. 11, 2009

Nov. 11, 2009

Hello, Quite an interesting question recently popped up in pygame community that I'd like to ask to Python developers. How many of you use IDLE? What's wrong with it? >From my side I like the idea of having default Python editor that is small, fast, convenient and extensible/embeddable. IDLE is small and fast, but I feel really uncomfortable with its. The worst thing - I can't change it. Does anybody else feel the same to think if we could replace IDLE with something more maintainable by … [View More]

9 11

[format] Restrict fill characters for numerical values
by Stefan Krah Nov. 11, 2009

Nov. 11, 2009

Hi, I think http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3101/ is too liberal with the choice of fill characters for numerical values. As far as I can see, this is quite legal: Python 2.7a0 (trunk:76132M, Nov 6 2009, 15:20:35) [GCC 4.1.3 20080623 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.2-23ubuntu3)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> from decimal import * >>> format(Decimal(4), "9<10") '4999999999' >>> format(Decimal(4), "9>10") '… [View More]

2 4

Replacing IDLE
by anatoly techtonik Nov. 11, 2009

Nov. 11, 2009

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:10 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de> wrote: >> >> Anatoly's question is actually a fair one for python-dev - we're the >> ones that *ship* Idle, so it is legitimate to ask our reasons for >> continuing to do so. > > OTOH, the second (or, rather, third) question (does anybody think it > should be replaced) is indeed on-topic for python-dev. That is the exact question I have in my mind. Sorry for not being able to state … [View More]

8 14

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 87
by wa2n39＠gmail.com Nov. 11, 2009

Nov. 11, 2009

Stop email Sent from my BlackBerry® powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT -----Original Message----- From: python-dev-request(a)python.org Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:09:45 To: <python-dev(a)python.org> Subject: Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 87 Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to python-dev(a)python.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to python-… [View More]dev-request(a)python.org You can reach the person managing the list at python-dev-owner(a)python.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Python-Dev digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: 2.7/3.2 release schedule (Martin v. L?wis) 2. Re: 2.7/3.2 release schedule (Nick Coghlan) 3. Re: Reworking the GIL (Antoine Pitrou) 4. Re: Status of the Buildbot fleet and related bugs (Antoine Pitrou) 5. Re: Status of the Buildbot fleet and related bugs (Martin v. L?wis) 6. Re: 2.7/3.2 release schedule (Benjamin Peterson) 7. Re: 2.7/3.2 release schedule (Martin v. L?wis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:05:41 +0100 From: "Martin v. L?wis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de> To: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> Cc: Python Development <python-dev(a)python.org> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7/3.2 release schedule Message-ID: <4AF9D5A5.5000707(a)v.loewis.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> PEP 3003 states that Python 3.2 will be released 18-24 months after >> Python 3.1. Python 3.1 was released on June 2009-06-27 [1], so >> theoretically Python 3.2 should be released not before 2010-12-19 [2]. > > The PEP 3003 text isn't allowing for the fact that 3.1 is "3.0 as it > should have been", so the starting point for the 18-24 month rule of > thumb is actually back when 3.0 was released in Dec 2008. This was > discussed a fair bit back when the decision was made to do the short > release cycle between 3.0 and 3.1 in order to address some of the more > glaring shortcomings of the 3.0 release. I agree with everybody else who said that a) there was *no* consensus that the release cycle for 3.2 should be shortened because of 3.1 being released early. I also remember the opposite. b) whatever past discussion may have been, it would be a mistake to release 3.2 earlier than 18 months after 3.1. Of course, 2.7 *could* be released by the proposed schedule; it just would have to be decoupled from 3.2 (just as 2.6 eventually got decoupled from 3.0). I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e. not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months. Regards, Martin ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:16:50 +1000 From: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> To: "Martin v. L?wis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de> Cc: Python Development <python-dev(a)python.org> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7/3.2 release schedule Message-ID: <4AF9D842.5000808(a)gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Martin v. L?wis wrote: >>> PEP 3003 states that Python 3.2 will be released 18-24 months after >>> Python 3.1. Python 3.1 was released on June 2009-06-27 [1], so >>> theoretically Python 3.2 should be released not before 2010-12-19 [2]. >> The PEP 3003 text isn't allowing for the fact that 3.1 is "3.0 as it >> should have been", so the starting point for the 18-24 month rule of >> thumb is actually back when 3.0 was released in Dec 2008. This was >> discussed a fair bit back when the decision was made to do the short >> release cycle between 3.0 and 3.1 in order to address some of the more >> glaring shortcomings of the 3.0 release. > > I agree with everybody else who said that > > a) there was *no* consensus that the release cycle for 3.2 should be > shortened because of 3.1 being released early. I also remember the > opposite. > > b) whatever past discussion may have been, it would be a mistake to > release 3.2 earlier than 18 months after 3.1. Fair enough - I didn't remember that discussion all that well, but assumed it had reached that consensus due to the lack of comment when Benjamin originally posted his proposed schedule. Your response and Guido's clearly indicate otherwise :) If that wasn't the consensus, then all the dates should slide back 6 months (i.e. no alphas until June 2010). (I actually prefer that since it gives me a chance to find a cleaner approach to the runpy.run_path problem, but didn't want to rehash a discussion I thought we had already had) > Of course, 2.7 *could* be released by the proposed schedule; it just > would have to be decoupled from 3.2 (just as 2.6 eventually got > decoupled from 3.0). That leads to a 2.x version with features that aren't yet available in a 3.x version though. I thought we weren't planning on doing that anymore. > I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e. > not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months. Or just have the timing be 18 months for 3.2 and 24 months for 2.7 (i.e. push the first alpha of both back to June next year). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:26:24 +0000 (UTC) From: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> To: python-dev(a)python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Reworking the GIL Message-ID: <hdclq0$tov$1(a)ger.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello again, I've now removed priority requests, tried to improve the internal doc a bit, and merged the changes into py3k. Afterwards, the new Windows 7 buildbot has hung in test_multiprocessing, but I don't know whether it's related. Regards Antoine. Guido van Rossum <guido <at> python.org> writes: > > > I would remove them -- if and when we find there's a need for > something like them I suspect it won't look like what you currently > have, so it's better not to complexificate your current patch with > them. (I would remove all traces, including the conditions passed into > the end macros.) > > >> My only suggestion so far: the description could use more explicit > >> documentation on the various variables and macros and how they > >> combine. > > > > Is it before or after > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2009- November/087482.html ? > > After. While that is already really helpful, not all the code is > easily linked back to paragraphs in that comment block, and some > variables are not mentioned by name in the block. > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:50:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> To: python-dev(a)python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of the Buildbot fleet and related bugs Message-ID: <hdcn72$2rl$1(a)ger.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Le Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:53:27 -0500, R. David Murray a ?crit?: > The buildbot waterfall is much greener now. Thanks to all who have > contributed to making it so (and it hasn't just been Mark and Antoine > and I, though we've been the most directly active (and yes, Mark, you > did contribute several fixes!)). The buildbots still show occasional oddities. For example, right now in the page "http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/3.x/", some results have disappeared (the columns for "AMD64 Ubuntu" builders have become empty). Moreover, some buildslaves have gone back in time (they are building r76188 after having built and tested r76195)... I swear the new GIL doesn't include a time machine. Regards Antoine. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:06:14 +0100 From: "Martin v. L?wis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de> To: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> Cc: python-dev(a)python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of the Buildbot fleet and related bugs Message-ID: <4AF9E3D6.2000807(a)v.loewis.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> The buildbot waterfall is much greener now. Thanks to all who have >> contributed to making it so (and it hasn't just been Mark and Antoine >> and I, though we've been the most directly active (and yes, Mark, you >> did contribute several fixes!)). > > The buildbots still show occasional oddities. For example, right now in > the page "http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/3.x/", some results have > disappeared (the columns for "AMD64 Ubuntu" builders have become empty). Yes, I noticed it too. It will go away after some page reloads. > Moreover, some buildslaves have gone back in time (they are building > r76188 after having built and tested r76195)... I swear the new GIL > doesn't include a time machine. That's because I resubmitted these changes after restarting the master. Regards, Martin ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:06:46 -0600 From: Benjamin Peterson <benjamin(a)python.org> To: Martin v. L?wis <martin(a)v.loewis.de> Cc: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>, Python Development <python-dev(a)python.org> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7/3.2 release schedule Message-ID: <1afaf6160911101406t6da78accq8918eb4ceb1adca5(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2009/11/10 "Martin v. L?wis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de>: > I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e. > not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months. The problem with that is that there is a period of time where 2.x has features which 3.x doesn't. My preference is to move back the whole schedule 6 months. -- Regards, Benjamin ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:09:42 +0100 From: "Martin v. L?wis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de> To: Benjamin Peterson <benjamin(a)python.org> Cc: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>, Python Development <python-dev(a)python.org> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7/3.2 release schedule Message-ID: <4AF9E4A6.8070304(a)v.loewis.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2009/11/10 "Martin v. L?wis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de>: >> I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e. >> not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months. > > The problem with that is that there is a period of time where 2.x has > features which 3.x doesn't. My preference is to move back the whole > schedule 6 months. Ok, fine with me as well. FWIW, I don't see that (2.7 released before 3.2) as a problem (but I understand that others might, for what I would consider formal reasons). Regards, Martin ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev(a)python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev End of Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 87 ****************************************** [View Less]

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 83
by wa2n39＠gmail.com Nov. 11, 2009

Nov. 11, 2009

Unreg ------Pesan Asli------ Dari:python-dev-request@python.org Pengirim:python-dev-bounces+wa2n39=gmail.com@python.org Ke:python-dev@python.org Balas Ke:python-dev@python.org Perihal:Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 83 Terkirim:10 Nov 2009 03:00 Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to python-dev(a)python.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to python-… [View More]

1 0

raw binary data and 2to3
by skip＠pobox.com Nov. 10, 2009

Nov. 10, 2009

SpamBayes has several files which contain raw 8-bit data embedded in string literals. Before I do manual work to make them parseable by 2to3 I thought I would ask if there was either a fixer available which I'm not getting by default or if there is an opportunity to add a new fixer to 2to3. The usage is pretty straightforward. For example, a string literal might contain the bytes for a GIF image: data = "GIF89a(..." Is there a potentially automated path from where the code is today to … [View More]

5 5

OpenSSL vulnerability
by Guido van Rossum Nov. 10, 2009

Nov. 10, 2009

Now that a new SSL vulnerability is out (http://extendedsubset.com/?p=8) should we regenerate binary distributions that include copies of openssl (I think only the Windows MSIs) ? Does it affect any of our ssl APIs? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

8 9

Retrieve an arbitrary element from a set without removing it
by Willi Richert Nov. 10, 2009

Nov. 10, 2009

Hi, recently I wrote an algorithm, in which very often I had to get an arbitrary element from a set without removing it. Three possibilities came to mind: 1. x = some_set.pop() some_set.add(x) 2. for x in some_set: break 3. x = iter(some_set).next() Of course, the third should be the fastest. It nevertheless goes through all the iterator creation stuff, which costs some time. I wondered, why the builtin set does not provide a more direct and efficient way for retrieving some … [View More]

39 151