On core-mentorship someone asked about PEP 3145 - Asynchronous I/O for
subprocess.popen. I answered that asyncio now has subprocess support
(including non-blocking I/O on the three standard stream pipes), so
it's not obvious anything else is needed.
Should we change the PEP's status to Rejected or Superseded?
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> wrote:
> I don't think we have recent download numbers since the Website
> overhaul (do we?), but Python 3 isn't an "experimental concept
> language" anymore (it hasn't been since 3.3 or 3.2, I'd say).
Using the old logs, which are still good through 2013, I've found the following:
The first year of a release series (month of final release month + 12mos):
2.6.x - 10.3 Million
2.7.x - 10.26M
3.2.x - 5.84M
3.3.x - 13.1M
2013 downloads (out of 34.79M across all possible versions):
2.6.x - 1.9M
2.7.x - 14.3M
3.2.x - 1.03M
3.3.x - 13.85M
3.3 had a big first year of availability (Oct '12-'13), and throughout
2013 it represented 48% of those versions listed above.
26.05.14 10:59, raymond.hettinger написав(ла):
> + result = [(elem, i) for i, elem in zip(range(n), it)]
Perhaps it is worth to add simple comment explaining why this is not
equivalent to just list(zip(it, range(n))). Otherwise it can be
unintentionally "optimized" in future.
While my last appeal resulted in quite some commits (thanks!), I still
have some more commit-ready patches waiting for review. It'd be great
if some people could find time to take a look:
* http://bugs.python.org/issue1738 (filecmp.dircmp does exact match
Reviewed patch, rebased on current hg tip
* http://bugs.python.org/issue20177 (Derby #8: Convert 28 sites to
Argument Clinic across 2 files)
I only wrote the patch for one file because I'd like to have feedback
before tackling the second. However, the patches are independent so
unless there are other problems this is ready for commit.
* http://bugs.python.org/issue15955 (gzip, bz2, lzma: add option to
limit output size)
* http://bugs.python.org/issue20578 (BufferedIOBase.readinto1 is
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
On behalf of the Python development community and the Python 3.4 release
team, I'm pleased to announce the availability of Python 3.4.1. Python
3.4.1 has over three hundred bugfixes and other improvements over 3.4.0.
One notable change: the version of OpenSSL bundled with the Windows
installer no longer has the "HeartBleed" vulnerability.
You can download it here:
I ran the following code in the Python interpreter and am trying to determine if the behavior I see is expected:
The first print statement above prints '4' and the second one prints '5'. However, if I remove the __init__ method from the class, the refcount stays the same.
If I change the above code like this, the ref count stays the same:
Can you let me know if this is a bug in the Python interpreter?
During a conversation today, I realised that the convention of
returning None from methods that change an object's state isn't
captured the Programming Recommendations section of PEP 8.
Specifically, I'm referring to this behaviour:
>>> .sort() is None
>>> "ABC".lower() is None
That's a deliberate design choice, and one that has been explained a
few times on the list when folks ask why ".sort().reverse()" doesn't
work when "'ABC'.lower().replace('-', '_')" does.
Would it be worth adding such a note? Or is it out of scope?
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia