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
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
Enjoy,
-Barry
-------------------- snip snip --------------------
PEP: 1
Title: PEP Purpose and Guidelines
Version: $Revision: 1.36 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2002/07/29 18:34:59 $
Author: Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton
Status: Active
Type: Informational
Created: 13-Jun-2000
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
the feature.
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
feature proposal[1].
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[2] or feature request tracker[3].
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
re-submission.
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
Final.
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
this fact.
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
^
+----> Rejected
v
Deferred
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].
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
during discussion.
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.
PEP Template
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[5].
PEP 9 contains a boilerplate[7] 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
required.
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 [1] for more details.
...
[1] http://www.python.org
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 [7] for more information about PEP style
...
References
[7] PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
If you decide to provide an explicit URL for a PEP, please use
this as the URL template:
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-xxxx.html
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
never padded.
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[6] or better yet, the SourceForge patch manager[2] 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
editor.
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
for details.
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
reversed. :).
References and Footnotes
[1] 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
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/python/nondist/peps/?cvsroot=…
[2] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
[3] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=355470&group_id=5470&func=browse
[4] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
[5] 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
http://www.python.org/peps/
[6] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
[7] PEP 9, Sample PEP Template
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0009.html
Copyright
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End:
I've received some enthusiastic emails from someone who wants to
revive restricted mode. He started out with a bunch of patches to the
CPython runtime using ctypes, which he attached to an App Engine bug:
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=671
Based on his code (the file secure.py is all you need, included in
secure.tar.gz) it seems he believes the only security leaks are
__subclasses__, gi_frame and gi_code. (I have since convinced him that
if we add "restricted" guards to these attributes, he doesn't need the
functions added to sys.)
I don't recall the exploits that Samuele once posted that caused the
death of rexec.py -- does anyone recall, or have a pointer to the
threads?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
Alright, I will re-submit with the contents pasted. I never use double
backquotes as I think them rather ugly; that is the work of an editor
or some automated program in the chain. Plus, it also messed up my
line formatting and now I have lines with one word on them... Anyway,
the contents of PEP 3145:
PEP: 3145
Title: Asynchronous I/O For subprocess.Popen
Author: (James) Eric Pruitt, Charles R. McCreary, Josiah Carlson
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/plain
Created: 04-Aug-2009
Python-Version: 3.2
Abstract:
In its present form, the subprocess.Popen implementation is prone to
dead-locking and blocking of the parent Python script while waiting on data
from the child process.
Motivation:
A search for "python asynchronous subprocess" will turn up numerous
accounts of people wanting to execute a child process and communicate with
it from time to time reading only the data that is available instead of
blocking to wait for the program to produce data [1] [2] [3]. The current
behavior of the subprocess module is that when a user sends or receives
data via the stdin, stderr and stdout file objects, dead locks are common
and documented [4] [5]. While communicate can be used to alleviate some of
the buffering issues, it will still cause the parent process to block while
attempting to read data when none is available to be read from the child
process.
Rationale:
There is a documented need for asynchronous, non-blocking functionality in
subprocess.Popen [6] [7] [2] [3]. Inclusion of the code would improve the
utility of the Python standard library that can be used on Unix based and
Windows builds of Python. Practically every I/O object in Python has a
file-like wrapper of some sort. Sockets already act as such and for
strings there is StringIO. Popen can be made to act like a file by simply
using the methods attached the the subprocess.Popen.stderr, stdout and
stdin file-like objects. But when using the read and write methods of
those options, you do not have the benefit of asynchronous I/O. In the
proposed solution the wrapper wraps the asynchronous methods to mimic a
file object.
Reference Implementation:
I have been maintaining a Google Code repository that contains all of my
changes including tests and documentation [9] as well as blog detailing
the problems I have come across in the development process [10].
I have been working on implementing non-blocking asynchronous I/O in the
subprocess.Popen module as well as a wrapper class for subprocess.Popen
that makes it so that an executed process can take the place of a file by
duplicating all of the methods and attributes that file objects have.
There are two base functions that have been added to the subprocess.Popen
class: Popen.send and Popen._recv, each with two separate implementations,
one for Windows and one for Unix based systems. The Windows
implementation uses ctypes to access the functions needed to control pipes
in the kernel 32 DLL in an asynchronous manner. On Unix based systems,
the Python interface for file control serves the same purpose. The
different implementations of Popen.send and Popen._recv have identical
arguments to make code that uses these functions work across multiple
platforms.
When calling the Popen._recv function, it requires the pipe name be
passed as an argument so there exists the Popen.recv function that passes
selects stdout as the pipe for Popen._recv by default. Popen.recv_err
selects stderr as the pipe by default. "Popen.recv" and "Popen.recv_err"
are much easier to read and understand than "Popen._recv('stdout' ..." and
"Popen._recv('stderr' ..." respectively.
Since the Popen._recv function does not wait on data to be produced
before returning a value, it may return empty bytes. Popen.asyncread
handles this issue by returning all data read over a given time
interval.
The ProcessIOWrapper class uses the asyncread and asyncwrite functions to
allow a process to act like a file so that there are no blocking issues
that can arise from using the stdout and stdin file objects produced from
a subprocess.Popen call.
References:
[1] [ python-Feature Requests-1191964 ] asynchronous Subprocess
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-bugs-list/2006-December/
036524.html
[2] Daily Life in an Ivory Basement : /feb-07/problems-with-subprocess
http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/feb-07/problems-with-subprocess
[3] How can I run an external command asynchronously from Python? - Stack
Overflow
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/636561/how-can-i-run-an-external-
command-asynchronously-from-python
[4] 18.1. subprocess - Subprocess management - Python v2.6.2 documentation
http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.Popen.wait
[5] 18.1. subprocess - Subprocess management - Python v2.6.2 documentation
http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.Popen.kill
[6] Issue 1191964: asynchronous Subprocess - Python tracker
http://bugs.python.org/issue1191964
[7] Module to allow Asynchronous subprocess use on Windows and Posix
platforms - ActiveState Code
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/440554/
[8] subprocess.rst - subprocdev - Project Hosting on Google Code
http://code.google.com/p/subprocdev/source/browse/doc/subprocess.rst?spec=s…
[9] subprocdev - Project Hosting on Google Code
http://code.google.com/p/subprocdev
[10] Python Subprocess Dev
http://subdev.blogspot.com/
Copyright:
This P.E.P. is licensed under the Open Publication License;
http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 22:56, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin(a)python.org> wrote:
> 2009/9/7 Eric Pruitt <eric.pruitt(a)gmail.com>:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have been working on adding asynchronous I/O to the Python
>> subprocess module as part of my Google Summer of Code project. Now
>> that I have finished documenting and pruning the code, I present PEP
>> 3145 for its inclusion into the Python core code. Any and all feedback
>> on the PEP (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3145/) is appreciated.
>
> Hi Eric,
> One of the reasons you're not getting many response is that you've not
> pasted the contents of the PEP in this message. That makes it really
> easy for people to comment on various sections.
>
> BTW, it seems like you were trying to use reST formatting with the
> text PEP layout. Double backquotes only mean something in reST.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Benjamin
>
Hello everyone.
I see several problems with the two hex-conversion function pairs that
Python offers:
1. binascii.hexlify and binascii.unhexlify
2. bytes.fromhex and bytes.hex
Problem #1:
bytes.hex is not implemented, although it was specified in PEP 358.
This means there is no symmetrical function to accompany bytes.fromhex.
Problem #2:
Both pairs perform the same function, although The Zen Of Python suggests
that
"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
I do not understand why PEP 358 specified the bytes function pair although
it mentioned the binascii pair...
Problem #3:
bytes.fromhex may receive spaces in the input string, although
binascii.unhexlify may not.
I see no good reason for these two functions to have different features.
Problem #4:
binascii.unhexlify may receive both input types: strings or bytes, whereas
bytes.fromhex raises an exception when given a bytes parameter.
Again there is no reason for these functions to be different.
Problem #5:
binascii.hexlify returns a bytes type - although ideally, converting to hex
should
always return string types and converting from hex should always return
bytes.
IMO there is no meaning of bytes as an output of hexlify, since the output
is a
representation of other bytes.
This is also the suggested behavior of bytes.hex in PEP 358
Problems #4 and #5 call for a decision about the input and output of the
functions being discussed:
Option A : Strict input and output
unhexlify (and bytes.fromhex) may only receives string and may only return
bytes
hexlify (and bytes.hex) may only receives bytes and may only return strings
Option B : Robust input and strict output
unhexlify (and bytes.fromhex) may receive bytes and strings and may only
return bytes
hexlify (and bytes.hex) may receive bytes or strings and may only return
strings
Of course we may also consider a third option, which will allow the return
type of
all functions to be robust (perhaps specified in a keyword argument), but as
I wrote in
the description of problem #5, I see no sense in that.
Note that PEP 3137 describes: "... the more strict definitions of encoding
and decoding in
Python 3000: encoding always takes a Unicode string and returns a bytes
sequence, and decoding
always takes a bytes sequence and returns a Unicode string." - suggesting
option A.
To repeat problems #4 and #5, the current behavior does not match any
option:
* The return type of binascii.hexlify should be string, and this is not the
current behavior.
As for the input:
* Option A is not the current behavior because binascii.unhexlify may
receive both input types.
* Option B is not the current behavior because bytes.fromhex does not allow
bytes as input.
To fix these issues, three changes should be applied:
1. Deprecate bytes.fromhex. This fixes the following problems:
#4 (go with option B and remove the function that does not allow bytes
input)
#2 (the binascii functions will be the only way to "do it")
#1 (bytes.hex should not be implemented)
2. In order to keep the functionality that bytes.fromhex has over unhexlify,
the latter function should be able to handle spaces in its input (fix #3)
3. binascii.hexlify should return string as its return type (fix #5)
I propose the following PEP for inclusion to Python 3.1.
Please comment.
Regards,
Martin
Abstract
========
Namespace packages are a mechanism for splitting a single Python
package across multiple directories on disk. In current Python
versions, an algorithm to compute the packages __path__ must be
formulated. With the enhancement proposed here, the import machinery
itself will construct the list of directories that make up the
package.
Terminology
===========
Within this PEP, the term package refers to Python packages as defined
by Python's import statement. The term distribution refers to
separately installable sets of Python modules as stored in the Python
package index, and installed by distutils or setuptools. The term
vendor package refers to groups of files installed by an operating
system's packaging mechanism (e.g. Debian or Redhat packages install
on Linux systems).
The term portion refers to a set of files in a single directory (possibly
stored in a zip file) that contribute to a namespace package.
Namespace packages today
========================
Python currently provides the pkgutil.extend_path to denote a package as
a namespace package. The recommended way of using it is to put::
from pkgutil import extend_path
__path__ = extend_path(__path__, __name__)
int the package's ``__init__.py``. Every distribution needs to provide
the same contents in its ``__init__.py``, so that extend_path is
invoked independent of which portion of the package gets imported
first. As a consequence, the package's ``__init__.py`` cannot
practically define any names as it depends on the order of the package
fragments on sys.path which portion is imported first. As a special
feature, extend_path reads files named ``*.pkg`` which allow to
declare additional portions.
setuptools provides a similar function pkg_resources.declare_namespace
that is used in the form::
import pkg_resources
pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)
In the portion's __init__.py, no assignment to __path__ is necessary,
as declare_namespace modifies the package __path__ through sys.modules.
As a special feature, declare_namespace also supports zip files, and
registers the package name internally so that future additions to sys.path
by setuptools can properly add additional portions to each package.
setuptools allows declaring namespace packages in a distribution's
setup.py, so that distribution developers don't need to put the
magic __path__ modification into __init__.py themselves.
Rationale
=========
The current imperative approach to namespace packages has lead to
multiple slightly-incompatible mechanisms for providing namespace
packages. For example, pkgutil supports ``*.pkg`` files; setuptools
doesn't. Likewise, setuptools supports inspecting zip files, and
supports adding portions to its _namespace_packages variable, whereas
pkgutil doesn't.
In addition, the current approach causes problems for system vendors.
Vendor packages typically must not provide overlapping files, and an
attempt to install a vendor package that has a file already on disk
will fail or cause unpredictable behavior. As vendors might chose to
package distributions such that they will end up all in a single
directory for the namespace package, all portions would contribute
conflicting __init__.py files.
Specification
=============
Rather than using an imperative mechanism for importing packages, a
declarative approach is proposed here, as an extension to the existing
``*.pkg`` mechanism.
The import statement is extended so that it directly considers ``*.pkg``
files during import; a directory is considered a package if it either
contains a file named __init__.py, or a file whose name ends with
".pkg".
In addition, the format of the ``*.pkg`` file is extended: a line with
the single character ``*`` indicates that the entire sys.path will
be searched for portions of the namespace package at the time the
namespace packages is imported.
Importing a package will immediately compute the package's __path__;
the ``*.pkg`` files are not considered anymore after the initial import.
If a ``*.pkg`` package contains an asterisk, this asterisk is prepended
to the package's __path__ to indicate that the package is a namespace
package (and that thus further extensions to sys.path might also
want to extend __path__). At most one such asterisk gets prepended
to the path.
extend_path will be extended to recognize namespace packages according
to this PEP, and avoid adding directories twice to __path__.
No other change to the importing mechanism is made; searching
modules (including __init__.py) will continue to stop at the first
module encountered.
Discussion
==========
With the addition of ``*.pkg`` files to the import mechanism, namespace
packages can stop filling out the namespace package's __init__.py.
As a consequence, extend_path and declare_namespace become obsolete.
It is recommended that distributions put a file <distribution>.pkg
into their namespace packages, with a single asterisk. This allows
vendor packages to install multiple portions of namespace package
into a single directory, with no risk of overlapping files.
Namespace packages can start providing non-trivial __init__.py
implementations; to do so, it is recommended that a single distribution
provides a portion with just the namespace package's __init__.py
(and potentially other modules that belong to the namespace package
proper).
The mechanism is mostly compatible with the existing namespace
mechanisms. extend_path will be adjusted to this specification;
any other mechanism might cause portions to get added twice to
__path__.
Copyright
=========
This document has been placed in the public domain.
There's a lot of code already out there (in the standard library and
other places) that uses %-style formatting, when in Python 3.0 we
should be encouraging {}-style formatting. We should really provide
some sort of transition plan. Consider an example from the logging
docs:
logging.Formatter("%(asctime)s - %(name)s - %(levelname)s - %(message)s")
We'd like to support both this style as well as the following style:
logging.Formatter("{asctime} - {name} - {levelname} - {message}")
Perhaps we'd eventually deprecate the %-style formatting, but at least
in the intervening time, we'd have to support both. I see a few
possibilities:
* Add a new class, NewFormatter, which uses the {}-style formatting.
This is ugly because it makes the formatting we're trying to encourage
look like the alternative implementation instead of the standard one.
It also means we have to come up with new names for every API that
uses format strings.
* Have Formatter try to guess whether it got %-style formatting or
{}-style formatting, and then delegate to the appropriate one. I don't
know how accurately we can guess. We also end up still relying on both
formatting styles under the hood.
* Have Formatter convert all %-style formatting strings to {}-style
formatting strings (automatically). This still involves some guessing,
and involves some serious hacking to translate from one to the other
(maybe it wouldn't even always be possible?). But at least we'd only
be using {}-style formatting under the hood.
Thoughts?
Steve
--
Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis?
Did Steve tell you that?
--- The Hiphopopotamus
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin(a)python.org> wrote:
> 2009/9/27 Steven Bethard <steven.bethard(a)gmail.com>:
>> The first release where any real deprecation message would show up is
>> Python 3.4, more than 3 years away. If you think 3 years isn't long
>> enough for people to be over the Python 3 transition, let's stick in
>> another version in there and make it 4.5 years.
>
> So, why even bother deprecating it if nobody is going to see the warnings?
I feel like I'm repeating the PEP, but here it is again anyway. There
will be messages in the docs and pending deprecation warnings (which
don't show up by default but can be requested) starting in Python 2.7
and 3.2. Regular deprecation warnings wouldn't show up until Python
3.4, 3 years away. This compromise was intended exactly to address the
issue you brought up about people getting over the Python 3
transition.
Steve
--
Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis?
Did Steve tell you that?
--- The Hiphopopotamus
Dear Pythonistas:
This issue causes serious problems. Users occasionally get binaries built for a
compatible Linux and Python version but with a different UCS2-vs-UCS4 setting,
and those users get mysterious memory corruption errors which are hard to
diagnose. It is possible that these situations also open up security
vulnerabilities. A couple such instances are documented on
http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue78, but you can find more by googling.
I would like to get this problem fixed!
In order to help address this issue I sampled what UCS size is used by python
executables in the wild. I instrumented a few buildslaves that are
contributed by
various people to the Tahoe-LAFS project to print out their platform,
python version,
and sys.maxunicode. The full results are appended below. maxunicode: 1114111
means that python executable was configured with --enable-unicode=ucs4, and
maxunicode: 65535 means that python executable was configured with
--enable-unicode=ucs2 or just with --enable-unicode . The only
incompatibilities
that I found are because some packagers have deliberately set UCS4
configuration and other packagers have left the default setting.
In the three cases where someone configured python with UCS2, one of the three
is certainly an accident (a custom-built python executable on an Ubuntu server)
and the other two just use the default instead of specifically configuring ucs2
in their configurations of Python and I suspect that they don't know the
difference and that it was an accident that they built a Python incompatible
with other distributions of their operating system.
In sum, while it would be good to add the unicode setting to the platform's ABI
(as discussed in setuptools ticket #78), it would also be good to make
the default
value be UCS4 instead of UCS2. This would fix all three of the potential
incompatibilities that I found (listed below), and once we have proper inclusion
of the unicode setting in the ABI in order to prevent the memory corruption,
defaulting to UCS4 would increase the likelihood that a binary built on one
distribution would be usable on another.
I'm sure that someone can come up with a reason why UCS2 is better than UCS4,
but I'm also sure that the benefits of compatibility outweigh any benefits of
UCS2 encoding, and that the widespread use of UCS4 demonstrates that there is
nothing fatally wrong with it, and that people who really value UCS2 encoding
more than compatibility can choose that for themselves by explicitly
setting UCS2.
Let me restate that I am not suggesting taking away anyone's options, only
making the setting for people who don't specify default to the
compatible option.
Hm, I guess that means that it should default to UCS2 on Windows and Mac and
to UCS4 on Linux and Solaris.
Regards,
Zooko
Ubuntu 6.10 "edgy" i386: python: 2.4.4c1 (#2, Mar 7 2008, 03:03:38) [GCC 4.1.2
20060928 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.1-13ubuntu5)], maxunicode: 1114111
Ubuntu 7.04 "feisty": python: 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Jul 31 2008, 22:53:39) [GCC
4.1.2 (Ubuntu 4.1.2-0ubuntu4)], maxunicode: 1114111
Ubuntu 7.10 "gutsy" i386: python: 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Jul 31 2008, 23:17:40)
[GCC 4.1.3 20070929 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.2-16ubuntu2)], maxunicode: 1114111
Ubuntu 8.04 "hardy" amd64: python: 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Jul 22 2009, 15:33:10)
[GCC 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu3)], maxunicode: 1114111
Ubuntu 8.04 "hardy" i386: *custom* python: 2.6 (r26:66714, Oct 2 2008,
13:40:28) [GCC 4.2.3 (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)], maxunicode: 65535
Ubuntu 8.04 "hardy" i386: python: 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Jul 22 2009, 15:35:03)
[GCC 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu3)], maxunicode: 1114111
Ubuntu 9.04 "jaunty" amd64: *custom* python: 2.6.2 (release26-maint, Apr 19
2009, 01:58:18) [GCC 4.3.3], maxunicode: 1114111
Debian 4.0 "etch" i386: python: 2.4.4 (#2, Oct 22 2008, 19:52:44) [GCC 4.1.2
20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)], maxunicode: 1114111
Debian 5.0 "lenny" i386: python: 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Jan 4 2009, 17:40:26) [GCC
4.3.2], maxunicode: 1114111
Debian 5.0 "lenny" amd64: python: 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Jan 4 2009, 21:59:32)
[GCC 4.3.2], maxunicode: 1114111
Debian 5.0 "lenny" armv5tel: python: 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Jan 5 2009, 02:00:00)
[GCC 4.3.2], maxunicode: 1114111
Debian unstable "squeeze/sid" i386: python: 2.5.4 (r254:67916, Feb 17 2009,
20:16:45) [GCC 4.3.3], maxunicode: 1114111
Fedora 11 "leonidas" amd64: python: 2.6 (r26:66714, Jul 4 2009, 17:37:13) [GCC
4.4.0 20090506 (Red Hat 4.4.0-4)], maxunicode: 1114111
ArchLinux: python: 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Jul 20 2009, 02:23:30) [GCC 4.4.0
20090630 (prerelease)], maxunicode: 65535
NetBSD 4: python: 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Mar 20 2009, 14:00:07) [GCC 4.1.2 20060628
prerelease (NetBSD nb2 20060711)], maxunicode: 65535
OpenSolaris SunOS-5.11-i86pc-i386-32bit: python: 2.4.4 (#1, Mar 10 2009,
09:35:36) [C], maxunicode: 65535
Nexenta NCP1 SunOS-5.11-i86pc-i386-32bit: python: 2.4.3 (#2, May 3 2006,
19:12:42) [GCC 4.0.3 (GNU_OpenSolaris 4.0.3-1nexenta4)], maxunicode: 1114111
Mac OS 10.6 "snow leopard" i386: python: 2.6.1 (r261:67515, Jul 7 2009,
23:51:51) [GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5646)], maxunicode: 65535
Mac OS 10.5 "leopard" i386: python: 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Feb 6 2009, 19:02:12)
[GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5465)], maxunicode: 65535
Mac OS 10.4 "tiger" *custom* python: 2.5.4 (release25-maint:72153M, Apr 30 2009,
12:28:20) [GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5367)], maxunicode: 65535
Cygwin CYGWIN_NT-5.1-1.5.25-0.156-4-2-i686-32bit-WindowsPE: python: 2.5.2
(r252:60911, Dec 2 2008, 09:26:14) [GCC 3.4.4 (cygming special, gdc 0.12,
using dmd 0.125)], maxunicode: 65535
Windows: python: 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Apr 21 2009, 15:05:37) [MSC v.1500 32 bit
(Intel)], maxunicode: 65535
Windows: python: 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Apr 18 2007, 08:51:08) [MSC v.1310 32 bit
(Intel)], maxunicode: 65535
Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> Folks:
>
> I'm sorry, I think I didn't make my concern clear. My users, and lots
> of other users, are having a problem with incompatibility between
> Python binary extension modules. One way to improve the situation
> would be if the Python devs would use their "bully pulpit" -- their
> unique position as a source respected by all Linux distributions --
> and say "We recommend that Linux distributions use UCS4 for
> compatibility with one another". This would not abrogate anyone's
> ability to choose their preferred setting nor, as far as I can tell,
> would it interfere with the ongoing development of Python.
-1
Please note that we did not choose to ship Python as UCS4 binary
on Linux - the Linux distributions did.
The Python default is UCS2 for a good reason: it's a good trade-off
between memory consumption, functionality and performance.
As already mentioned, I also don't understand how the changing
the Python default on Linux would help your users in any way -
if you let distutils compile your extensions, it's automatically
going to use the right Unicode setting for you (as well as your
users).
Unfortunately, this automatic support doesn't help you when
shipping e.g. setuptools eggs, but this is a tool problem,
not one of Python: setuptools completely ignores the fact
that there are two ways to build Python.
I'd suggest you ask the tool maintainers to adjust their tools
to support the Python Unicode option.
> Here are the details:
>
> I'm the maintainer of several Python packages. I work hard to make it
> easy for users, even users who don't know anything about Python, to
> use my software. There have been many pain points in this process and
> I've spent a lot of time on it for about three years now working on
> packaging, including the tools such as setuptools and distutils and
> the new "distribute" tool. Python packaging has been improving during
> these years -- things are looking up.
>
> One of the remaining pain points is that I can distribute binaries of
> my Python extension modules for Windows or Mac, but if I distribute a
> binary Python extension module on Linux, then if the user has a
> different UCS2/UCS4 setting then they won't be able to use the
> extension module. The current de facto standard for Linux is UCS4 --
> it is used by Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, OpenSuSE, etc. etc.. The
> vast majority of Linux users in practice have UCS4, and most binary
> Python modules are compiled for UCS4.
>
> That means that a few folks will get left out. Those folks, from my
> experience, are people who built their python executable themselves
> without specifying an override for the default, and the smaller Linux
> distributions who insist on doing whatever upstream Python devs
> recommend instead of doing whatever the other Linux distros are doing.
> One of the data points that I reported was a Python interpreter that
> was built locally on an Ubuntu server. Since the person building it
> didn't know to override the default setting of --enable-unicode, he
> ended up with a Python interpreter built for UCS2, even though all the
> Python extension modules shipped by Ubuntu were built with UCS4.
People building their own Python version will usually also build
their own extensions, so I don't really believe that the above
scenario is very common.
Also note that Python will complain loudly when you try to load
a UCS2 extension in a UCS4 build and vice-versa. We've made sure
that any extension using the Python Unicode C API has to be built
for the same UCS version of Python. This is done by using different
names for the C APIs at the C level.
> These are not isolated incidents. The following google searches
> suggest that a number of people spend time trying to figure out why
> Python extension modules fail on their linux systems:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=PyUnicodeUCS4_FromUnicode+undefined+symbol
> http://www.google.com/search?q=+PyUnicodeUCS2_FromUnicode+undefined+symbol
> http://www.google.com/search?q=_PyUnicodeUCS2_AsDefaultEncodedString+undefi…
Perhaps we should add a FAQ entry for these linker errors
(which are caused by the mentioned C API changes to prevent
mixing UCS version) ?!
Here's a quick way to determine you Python Unicode build type:
python -c "import sys;print((sys.maxunicode<66000)and'UCS2'or'UCS4')"
Perhaps we should include this info as well as an 32/64-bit indicator
and the processor type in the Python startup line:
# python
Python 2.6 (r26:66714, Feb 3 2009, 20:49:49, UCS4, 64-bit, x86_64)
[GCC 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291]] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
This would help users find the right binaries to install as
extension.
> Another data point is the Mandriva Linux distribution. It is probably
> much smaller than Debian, Ubuntu, or RedHat, but it is still one of
> the major, well-known distributions. I requested of the Python
> maintainer for Mandriva, Michael Scherer, that they switch from UCS2
> to UCS4 in order to reduce compatibility problems like these. His
> answer as I understood it was that it is best to follow the
> recommendations of the upstream Python devs by using the default
> setting instead of choosing a setting for himself.
Which is IMHO what all Linux distributions should have done.
Distributions should really not be put in charge of upstream
coding design decisions.
Regards,
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com
Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Sep 28 2009)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________
::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::
eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
Tue Jul 3 10:14:17 CEST 2007, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 6/30/07, Matt Chisholm <matt-python at theory.org> wrote:
> > I've created and submitted a new PEP proposing support for labels in
> > Python's break and continue statements. Georg Brandl has graciously
> > added it to the PEP list as PEP 3136:
> >
> > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3136/
>
> I think this is a good summary of various proposals that have been
> floated in the past, plus some new ones. As a PEP, it falls short
> because it doesn't pick a solution but merely offers a large menu of
> possible options. Also, there is nothing about implementation yet.
>
> However, I'm rejecting it on the basis that code so complicated to
> require this feature is very rare. In most cases there are existing
> work-arounds that produce clean code, for example using 'return'.
I agree that this feature will only serve as a quick hack and in many
cases it would be misused and ugly code will be the result. However,
it seems that there are some shortcuts that have sneaked into python
(I am a fairly new Python programmer, only since late 2.4, so don't
shoot me). The specific one of which I speak about is:
while_stmt ::= "while" expression ":" suite
["else" ":" suite]
for_stmt ::= "for" target_list "in" expression_list ":" suite
["else" ":" suite]
try1_stmt ::= "try" ":" suite
("except" [expression ["as" target]] ":" suite)+
["else" ":" suite]
["finally" ":" suite]
All these else's seem like shortcuts to me. I did find a use for them,
once I found out they existed, but I get butterflies whenever I do.
--
Hatem Nassrat
