Mailman 3 March 2009 - Python-Dev

More on Py3K urllib -- urlencode()
by Dan Mahn 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

Hi. I've been using Py3K successfully for a while now, and have some questions about urlencode(). 1) The docs mention that items sent to urlencode() are quoted using quote_plus(). However, instances of type "bytes" are not handled like they are with quote_plus() because urlencode() converts the parameters to strings first (which then puts a small "b" and single quotes around a textual representation of the bytes). It just seems to me that instances of type "bytes" should be passed directly to quote_plus(). That would complicate the code just a bit, but would end up being much more intuitive and useful. 2) If urlencode() relies so heavily on quote_plus(), then why doesn't it include the extra encoding-related parameters that quote_plus() takes? 3) Regarding the following code fragment in urlencode(): k = quote_plus(str(k)) if isinstance(v, str): v = quote_plus(v) l.append(k + '=' + v) elif isinstance(v, str): # is there a reasonable way to convert to ASCII? # encode generates a string, but "replace" or "ignore" # lose information and "strict" can raise UnicodeError v = quote_plus(v.encode("ASCII","replace")) l.append(k + '=' + v) I don't understand how the "elif" section is invoked, as it uses the same condition as the "if" section. Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this issue. I could submit a patch for urlencode() to better explain my ideas if that would be useful. - Dan

3 13

reviewing patches
by Tennessee Leeuwenburg 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

Hi all, I have seen it said that one very useful activity is reviewing patches. Of the issues in the tracker, it is not immediately clear to me what is required of such a review. Many of these patches appear to be bundled in with feature requests, leaving the question of whether the review it judging the quality of the code or the merits of the feature request. I do realise that these issues have probably been previously discussed on this list. Let's take as an example the following issue: http://bugs.python.org/issue1818 This has obviously been around for a while, but not been implemented for some reason. There are no links in any of the comments to any email threads regarding its merits, however I recognise the name of the submitter. This makes me think the patch is probably implementing desirable functionality. However, it has no priority set, which makes me think that the community hasn't yet given it any kind of 'status', insofar as a priority can stand in for desirability. It seems to make sense that code quality reviews should be separated from feature request reviews (quality code evaluation vs desirability of function evaluation) but I don't see how this occurs. I feel a lot more qualified to evaluate code quality than desirability of function. Questions like this make it difficult for someone in my position, who is happy to tackle 'whatever needs to be done', to begin the task of patch reviews. While I'm not sure that a formal or semi-formal approval process would make anything better, I think it would be good if there were some kind of 'executive review' process by which an issue could be marked as being a good thing or not. Regards, -Tennessee -- -------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Leeuwenburg http://myownhat.blogspot.com/ "Don't believe everything you think"

4 5

PyS60 - mailbox
by Mahesh S 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

Hi, I am from the PyS60 (Python port on S60 platform) team. We have ported the Python 2.5.4 core in the latest 1.9.x series of PyS60. http://wiki.opensource.nokia.com/projects/PyS60 Currently we have a problem with the mailbox module. Check the code snippet below, from the mailbox module. *def clean(self): """Delete old files in "tmp".""" now = time.time() for entry in os.listdir(os.path.join(self._**path, 'tmp')): path = os.path.join(self._path, 'tmp', entry) if now - os.path.getatime(path) > 129600: # 60 * 60 * 36 os.remove(path)* The code in red, tries to delete the files that are not accessed in the last 36 hours. Any idea as to how this is supposed to work on platforms that do not support access time, for example Symbian/S60 ? Any work around ? - Mahesh

3 2

RELEASED Python 3.0.1
by Barry Warsaw 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On behalf of the Python development team, I'm happy to announce the availability of Python 3.0.1, the first bug fix release of Python 3.0. Version 3.0.1 fixes dozens of bugs reported since the release of Python 3.0 on December 3rd, 2008. Python 3.0 represents a major milestone in Python's history. This new version of the language is incompatible with the 2.x line of releases, while remaining true to BDFL Guido van Rossum's vision. For more information, links to documentation, and downloadable distributions, see the Python 3.0.1 release page: http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0.1/ To report bugs in Python 3.0.1, please submit them to the issue tracker at: http://bugs.python.org/ Enjoy! Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSZYpSnEjvBPtnXfVAQLQwgP/WSHp12dJVpEYtEOL/X8ynCQACriij9AM PgT6SacbMJLbsy84CTGA1lxF4NdEUQMY1IYz0do/aZ0+nBkSoy7SlkOVcncysLSC hVyTVlWQBdh63yA8QUk1I5dMbKeNpbCqRRgvSHaBrVdVz9mDM/r/L+j9lhBW4Cam 2lHLjRdQaG0= =vy0O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

10 30

Review of Issue http://bugs.python.org/issue2706, timedelta operators
by Tennessee Leeuwenburg 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

Hi all, I'm just trying to find my feet with regards to the proper process for reviewing. I'm not sure what's best: * Post the review as a comment on the associated issue. Only nosies will be updated. * Post the review as a comment on the issue, then post a one-line information update to this list * Post the review to this list for consideration * ???? other http://bugs.python.org/issue2706 General topic: Math operations on timedelta objects Last activity: 12 Dec 08 Original owner: webograph This issue covers a number of discrete functional changes. I here review each in turn: 1) Allow truediv, the operator '/', to be applied to two timedeltas (e.g. td1 / td2). The return value is a float representing the number of times that td2 goes into td1. Evaluation: Since both time deltas are quantitative values of the same unit, it makes sense they should be able to support basic math operations. In this case, operation to be added is '/' or truediv. I would personally find this functionality useful, and believe it is a natural addition to the code. Recommendation: That this functionality be recommended for development 2) Allow truediv to be applied to a timedelta and an int or float. The return value is a timedelta representing the fractional proportion of the original timedelta. Evaluation: This makes total sense. Recommendation: That this functionality be recommended for development 2) Allow divmod, the operator '%', to be applied to two timedeltas (e.g. td1 % td2). I think there is some debate here about whether the return value be an integer in microsends, or a timedelta. I personally believe that a timedelta should be returned, representing the amount of time remaining after (td1 // td2) * td2 has been subtracted. The alternative is an integer, but due to a lack of immediate clarity over what time quanta this integer represents, I would suggest returning a unit amount. There is also some discussion of returning (long, timedelta), but I personally fail to see the merits of returning the long without some unit attached. 3) Allow divmod, the operator '%', to be applied to a timedelta and an integer or float. (e.g. <timedelta> % 3). I'm not quite as sold on this. I suggest that more discussion is required to flesh this out further. A patch has been attached which implements some of this behaviour. I would suggest that it's valuable to start doing this work in discrete chunks so that progress can be begun before the issues under debate are resolved. I suggest that it would be appropriate to create three smaller issues, each tackling just one piece of functionality. This should make the changes more atomic and the code patch simpler. -T -- -------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Leeuwenburg http://myownhat.blogspot.com/ "Don't believe everything you think"

2 1

draft 3.1 release schedule
by Benjamin Peterson 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

Here's a very tentative 3.1 release schedule. 3.1a1 March 7 (Saturday) 3.1a2 April 11 (Saturday) 3.1b1 May 2 (Saturday) 3.1b2 May 23 (Saturday) 3.1rc1 June 13 (Saturday) 3.1rc2 June 27 (Saturday) I'm interested in your feedback with regards to the amount of time in beta and RC phase. Do you think we need that much time? Otherwise, we could move the final release back sometime in mid June. -- Regards, Benjamin

14 33

Tracker cleanup - Roundup hacking report :)
by Daniel (ajax) Diniz 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

Hi, Here's a progress report on the "let's make the tracker a bit better" tasks. Note: if you make use of saved queries, I recommend reading the 'anyone can remove any queries' issue: http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue244 Feedback on meta-tracker open issues, as well as new RFEs and replies to tracker-discuss threads should make the tracker meeting your needs a bit more likely :) Thanks Martin, Stefan, Jeroen, Ezio, Brett, Georg and others that helped along the way. Real tracker cleanup will be back soon ;) Best regards, Daniel Open WIP tickets: add # of comments to default issue list Track the counts of messages and nosy users on a given issue. http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue87 (screenshot: http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/file110/msg_nosy_counts.png ) Add multiselects for searches This allows one to search, e.g., for issues with "Version in ['2.5', '2.6', '2.7']" or "Stage in ['patch review', 'not selected']". http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue243 (example: http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/file105/issue_search.html ) Add 'Mail me' button to messages and issues Similar to becoming nosy retroactively, by getting a past message after the fact. This (supposedly) allows one to reply to any message in an issue from email. http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue245 Have issue ID search work from "search tracker" box Passing an ID into the "search tracker" box opens the issue with the matching ID. http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue123 Add 'Stage' to results page Adds 'Stage' as a column to the search results when 'Display' is selected. http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue242 "Search in All Issues" button http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue224 Have CVS download of issue list put name rather than ID http://issues.roundup-tracker.org/issue955070 Failed logins do not produce an error message Add a 'Login as %(user) successful' green-banner on successful logins http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue230 Tickets/ideas on sketching or local testing stage: notation to filter by logged-in user Allows 'reflexive' queries, like 'issues I've created', 'issues I follow', 'issues assigned to me'. Pending Query security resolution. http://issues.roundup-tracker.org/issue1525113 Shortcuts for selecting self in user lists: "Add me" for nosy and "Claim" for assignee. Provide prev/next/show list links when going through a list of bugs http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue4 Ability to specify non-matching criteria in filters/searches http://issues.roundup-tracker.org/issue678900 Email me my current changes without submitting (a.k.a. 'Save') Allow searching for ranges for Number attributes http://issues.roundup-tracker.org/issue1182919 input fields should have HTML id attributes http://issues.roundup-tracker.org/issue1513369 Full text "AND" search has message scope, not issue scope http://issues.roundup-tracker.org/issue1155657 Set attributes in the body http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue198 Closed tickets: Edit Queries screen should include a link to the search page http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue202 Denote which dependencies issues have been closed http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue207 Fix 'not closed' search http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue240 Add 'Stage' to search page http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue239 Add creator/assignee to search view http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue180

3 3

Python 3.0 grammar ambiguous?
by Fabio Zadrozny 09 Mar '09

09 Mar '09

Hi All, I'm trying to parse Python 3.0 following the Python 3.0 grammar from: http://svn.python.org/projects/python/branches/py3k/Grammar/Grammar Now, when getting to the arglist, it seems that the grammar is ambiguous, and I was wondering how does Python disambiguate that (I'll not put the whole grammar here, just the part that appears to be ambiguous): arglist: (argument ',')* (argument [','] |'*' test (',' argument)* [',' '**' test] |'**' test ) argument: test [comp_for] test: or_test or_test: and_test and_test: not_test not_test: 'not' not_test | comparison comparison: star_expr star_expr: ['*'] expr So, with that construct, having call(arglist) in a format: call(*test), the grammar would find it to be consumed in the argument construction (because of the start_expr) and not in the arglist in the '*' test (because the construct is ambiguous and the argument construct comes first), so, I was wondering how does Python disambiguate that... anyone has any pointers on it? It appears that happened while adding PEP 3132. Am I missing something here? Thanks, Fabio

4 8

PEP 239 - Rational
by Lie Ryan 09 Mar '09

09 Mar '09

PEP 239 says that Rational type was Rejected, but some time ago this decision is reverted, and now python 3.0 and python 2.6 includes a fractions.Fraction type. Shouldn't this PEP be updated? (At least to include a note of its obsoleted status or to point to the reversion)

2 1

Re: [Python-Dev] BZR mirror and pushing to Launchpad
by R. David Murray 09 Mar '09

09 Mar '09

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 10:49, Barry Warsaw wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > On Mar 9, 2009, at 10:48 AM, R. David Murray wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 09:30, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> > On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:02 AM, R. David Murray wrote: >> > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 08:15, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> > > > Perhaps RDM branched from code.python.org before I upgraded the > >> > > > repository format to 1.9-rich-root? >> > > I grabbed the tarball and made my initial branch on 2/20, from >> > > python.org. >> > > Then I branched from that to make the branch I pushed to Launchpad. >> > > Could the second branch be the problem? I just did 'bzr branch trunk >> > > trunk-myfix'. >> > >> > I upgraded the repository on 2/25, so it's possible your older tarball is >> > the problem. try running 'bzr upgrade --1.9.rich-root' on it and see if >> > that allows you to stack on Launchpad. >> >> Hmm. My client is 1.12, and it says: >> >> rdmurray@maestro:~/src/python/bzr>bzr upgrade --1.9.rich-root >> bzr: ERROR: no such option: --1.9.rich-root >> >> Do I need to downgrade to 1.9? > > No, sorry, that was a typo on my part. > > Try --1.9-rich-root > > Also, 'bzr help upgrade' Ach. I looked at an example of running the command I found on the web and didn't see the typo. I'd probably have spotted it if I'd checked the help :(. Upgrade running now, I'll report back after I try the push again. -- R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com

1 1