Mailman 3 December 2022 - Python-Dev

Mixed Python/C debugging
by Skip Montanaro 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

Having tried comp.lang.python with no response, I turn here... After at least ten years away from Python's run-time interpreter & byte code compiler, I'm getting set to familiarize myself with that again. This will, I think, entail debugging a mixed Python/C environment. I'm an Emacs user and am aware that GDB since 7.0 has support for debugging at the Python code level. Is Emacs+GDB my best bet? Are there any Python IDEs which support C-level breakpoints and debugging? Thanks, Skip

5 6

PEP 448 review
by Guido van Rossum 29 Mar '23

29 Mar '23

I'm back, I've re-read the PEP, and I've re-read the long thread with "(no subject)". I think Georg Brandl nailed it: """ *I like the "sequence and dict flattening" part of the PEP, mostly because itis consistent and should be easy to understand, but the comprehension syntaxenhancements seem to be bad for readability and "comprehending" what the codedoes.The call syntax part is a mixed bag on the one hand it is nice to be consistent with the extended possibilities in literals (flattening), but on the other hand there would be small but annoying inconsistencies anyways (e.g. the duplicate kwarg case above).* """ Greg Ewing followed up explaining that the inconsistency between dict flattening and call syntax is inherent in the pre-existing different rules for dicts vs. keyword args: {'a':1, 'a':2} results in {'a':2}, while f(a=1, a=2) is an error. (This form is a SyntaxError; the dynamic case f(a=1, **{'a': 1}) is a TypeError.) For me, allowing f(*a, *b) and f(**d, **e) and all the other combinations for function calls proposed by the PEP is an easy +1 -- it's a straightforward extension of the existing pattern, and anybody who knows what f(x, *a) does will understand f(x, *a, y, *b). Guessing what f(**d, **e) means shouldn't be hard either. Understanding the edge case for duplicate keys with f(**d, **e) is a little harder, but the error messages are pretty clear, and it is not a new edge case. The sequence and dict flattening syntax proposals are also clean and logical -- we already have *-unpacking on the receiving side, so allowing *x in tuple expressions reads pretty naturally (and the similarity with *a in argument lists certainly helps). From here, having [a, *x, b, *y] is also natural, and then the extension to other displays is natural: {a, *x, b, *y} and {a:1, **d, b:2, **e}. This, too, gets a +1 from me. So that leaves comprehensions. IIRC, during the development of the patch we realized that f(*x for x in xs) is sufficiently ambiguous that we decided to disallow it -- note that f(x for x in xs) is already somewhat of a special case because an argument can only be a "bare" generator expression if it is the only argument. The same reasoning doesn't apply (in that form) to list, set and dict comprehensions -- while f(x for x in xs) is identical in meaning to f((x for x in xs)), [x for x in xs] is NOT the same as [(x for x in xs)] (that's a list of one element, and the element is a generator expression). The basic premise of this part of the proposal is that if you have a few iterables, the new proposal (without comprehensions) lets you create a list or generator expression that iterates over all of them, essentially flattening them: >>> xs = [1, 2, 3] >>> ys = ['abc', 'def'] >>> zs = [99] >>> [*xs, *ys, *zs] [1, 2, 3, 'abc', 'def', 99] >>> But now suppose you have a list of iterables: >>> xss = [[1, 2, 3], ['abc', 'def'], [99]] >>> [*xss[0], *xss[1], *xss[2]] [1, 2, 3, 'abc', 'def', 99] >>> Wouldn't it be nice if you could write the latter using a comprehension? >>> xss = [[1, 2, 3], ['abc', 'def'], [99]] >>> [*xs for xs in xss] [1, 2, 3, 'abc', 'def', 99] >>> This is somewhat seductive, and the following is even nicer: the *xs position may be an expression, e.g.: >>> xss = [[1, 2, 3], ['abc', 'def'], [99]] >>> [*xs[:2] for xs in xss] [1, 2, 'abc', 'def', 99] >>> On the other hand, I had to explore the possibilities here by experimenting in the interpreter, and I discovered some odd edge cases (e.g. you can parenthesize the starred expression, but that seems a syntactic accident). All in all I am personally +0 on the comprehension part of the PEP, and I like that it provides a way to "flatten" a sequence of sequences, but I think very few people in the thread have supported this part. Therefore I would like to ask Neil to update the PEP and the patch to take out the comprehension part, so that the two "easy wins" can make it into Python 3.5 (basically, I am accepting two-thirds of the PEP :-). There is some time yet until alpha 2. I would also like code reviewers (Benjamin?) to start reviewing the patch <http://bugs.python.org/issue2292>, taking into account that the comprehension part needs to be removed. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

7 17

[RELEASE] Python 3.11.1, 3.10.9, 3.9.16, 3.8.16, 3.7.16, and 3.12.0 alpha 3 are now available
by Łukasz Langa 18 Feb '23

18 Feb '23

Greetings! We bring you a slew of releases this fine Saint Nicholas / Sinterklaas day. Six simultaneous releases has got to be some record. There’s one more record we broke this time, you’ll see below. In any case, updating is recommended due to security content: 3.7 - 3.12: gh-98739 <https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/98739>: Updated bundled libexpat to 2.5.0 to fix CVE-2022-43680 <https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-43680> (heap use-after-free). 3.7 - 3.12: gh-98433 <https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/98433>: The IDNA codec decoder used on DNS hostnames by socket or asyncio related name resolution functions no longer involves a quadratic algorithm to fix CVE-2022-45061 <https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-45061>. This prevents a potential CPU denial of service if an out-of-spec excessive length hostname involving bidirectional characters were decoded. Some protocols such as urllib http 3xx redirects potentially allow for an attacker to supply such a name. 3.7 - 3.12: gh-100001 <https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/100001>: python -m http.server no longer allows terminal control characters sent within a garbage request to be printed to the stderr server log. 3.8 - 3.12: gh-87604 <https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/87604>: Avoid publishing list of active per-interpreter audit hooks via the gc module. 3.9 - 3.10 (already released in 3.11+ before): gh-97514 <https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/97514>: On Linux the multiprocessing module returns to using filesystem backed unix domain sockets for communication with the forkserver process instead of the Linux abstract socket namespace. Only code that chooses to use the “forkserver” start method is affected. This prevents Linux CVE-2022-42919 <https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-42919> (potential privilege escalation) as abstract sockets have no permissions and could allow any user on the system in the same network namespace (often the whole system) to inject code into the multiprocessing forkserver process. This was a potential privilege escalation. Filesystem based socket permissions restrict this to the forkserver process user as was the default in Python 3.8 and earlier. 3.7 - 3.10: gh-98517 <https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/98517>: Port XKCP’s fix for the buffer overflows in SHA-3 to fix CVE-2022-37454 <https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-37454>. 3.7 - 3.9 (already released in 3.10+ before): gh-68966 <https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/68966>: The deprecated mailcap module now refuses to inject unsafe text (filenames, MIME types, parameters) into shell commands to address CVE-2015-20107 <https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-20107>. Instead of using such text, it will warn and act as if a match was not found (or for test commands, as if the test failed). <https://discuss.python.org/t/python-3-11-1-3-10-9-3-9-16-3-8-16-3-7-16-and-…>Python 3.12.0 alpha 3 Get it here, read the change log, sing a GPT-3-generated Sinterklaas song: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3120a3/ <https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3120a3/> 216 new commits since 3.12.0 alpha 2 last month. <https://discuss.python.org/t/python-3-11-1-3-10-9-3-9-16-3-8-16-3-7-16-and-…>Python 3.11.1 Get it here, see the change log, read the recipe for quark soup: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3111/ <https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3111/> A whopping 495 new commits since 3.11.0. This is a massive increase of changes comparing to 3.10 at the same stage in the release cycle: there were “only” 339 commits between 3.10.0 and 3.10.1. <https://discuss.python.org/t/python-3-11-1-3-10-9-3-9-16-3-8-16-3-7-16-and-…>Python 3.10.9 Get it here, read the change log, see circular patterns: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3109/ <https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3109/> 165 new commits. <https://discuss.python.org/t/python-3-11-1-3-10-9-3-9-16-3-8-16-3-7-16-and-…>Python 3.9.16 Get it here, read the change log, consider upgrading to a newer version: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3916/ <https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3916/> Security-only release with no binaries. 10 commits. <https://discuss.python.org/t/python-3-11-1-3-10-9-3-9-16-3-8-16-3-7-16-and-…>Python 3.8.16 Get it here, see the change log, definitely upgrade to a newer version: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3816/ <https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3816/> Security-only release with no binaries. 9 commits. <https://discuss.python.org/t/python-3-11-1-3-10-9-3-9-16-3-8-16-3-7-16-and-…>Python 3.7.16 Get it here, read the change log, check PEP 537 <https://peps.python.org/pep-0537/>to confirm EOL is coming to this version in June 2023: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3716/ <https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3716/> Security-only release with no binaries. 8 commits. <https://discuss.python.org/t/python-3-11-1-3-10-9-3-9-16-3-8-16-3-7-16-and-…>We hope you enjoy the new releases! Thanks to all of the many volunteers who help make Python Development and these releases possible! Please consider supporting our efforts by volunteering yourself or through organization contributions to the Python Software Foundation. https://www.python.org/psf/ <https://www.python.org/psf/> Your friendly release team, Ned Deily @nad <https://discuss.python.org/u/nad> Steve Dower @steve.dower <https://discuss.python.org/u/steve.dower> Pablo Galindo Salgado @pablogsal <https://discuss.python.org/u/pablogsal> Łukasz Langa @ambv <https://discuss.python.org/u/ambv> Thomas Wouters @thomas <https://discuss.python.org/u/thomas>

3 3

PEP 638: Syntactic macros
by Mark Shannon 06 Feb '23

06 Feb '23

Hi everyone, I've submitted my PEP on syntactic macros as PEP 638. https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0638/ All comments and suggestions are welcome. Cheers, Mark

16 25

Switching to Discourse
by Petr Viktorin 26 Jan '23

26 Jan '23

Hello, Currently development discussions are split between multiple communication channels, for example: - python-dev and discuss.python.org for design discussions, - GitHub Issues and Pull Requests for specific changes, - IRC, Discord and private chats for real-time discussions, - Topic-specific channels like typing-sig. While most of these serve different needs, there is too much overlap between python-dev and discuss.python.org. It seems that for most people, this situation is worse than sticking to either one platform – even if we don't go with that person's favorite. The discuss.python.org experiment has been going on for quite a while, and while the platform is not without its issues, we consider it a success. The Core Development category is busier than python-dev. According to staff, discuss.python.org is much easier to moderate.. If you're following python-dev but not discuss.python.org, you're missing out. The Steering Council would like to switch from python-dev to discuss.python.org. Practically, this means: - Moving the required PEP announcements to discuss.python.org - Moving discuss.python.org up in the devguide communications page (https://devguide.python.org/communication/) - And that's it? I imagine that the mailing list will stay around for continuing past discussion threads and for announcements, eventually switching to auto-reject incoming messages with a pointer to discuss.python.org. To be clear, discuss.python.org allows editing posts, which is frankly handy for typos and clarifications. Editing alone should not be used for adding new info -- we should cultivate a culture of being friendly to mail users & notification watchers. This probably bears repeating in a few places. We're aware not everyone wants to use the discuss.python.org website, but there are some ways to avoid it: - For new PEPs, you can point your RSS client to https://www.python.org/dev/peps/peps.rss – it's not e-mail, but many email clients have RSS support. You can also watch the Steering Council issues on GitHub (https://github.com/python/steering-council/issues/) for important questions and discussions. - You can use discuss.python.org's “mailing list mode” (which subscribes you to all new posts), possibly with filtering and/or categorizing messages locally. However, we would like to know if this will pose an undue burden to anyone, if there are workflows or usage problems that we are not aware of. As mentioned, this is something the Steering Council thinks is a good idea, but we want to make sure we're aware of all the impact when we make the final decision. – Petr, on behalf of the Steering Council

43 114

Re: PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings
by Rob Cliffe 22 Dec '22

22 Dec '22

Great stuff! 😁 Rob Cliffe On 19/12/2022 17:59, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I am very excited to share with you a PEP thatBatuhan Taskaya, > Lysandros Nikolaou and myself have been working on recently:PEP 701 - > PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings > <https://peps.python.org/pep-0701/>. > > We believe this will be a great improvement in both the > maintainability of CPython and the usability of f-strings. > > We look forward to hearing what you think about this and to get your > feedback! > > *Here is a TLDR for your convenience:* > > * The PEP proposes a formalized grammar for f-strings in Python by > adding f-strings directly into the Grammar instead of using a > two-pass hand-written parser. > * This would lift some existing restrictions for f-strings that (we > believe) will improve the user experience with f-strings. > * Other benefits include: > o Reduced maintenance costs for f-string parsing code as well as > improved usability for users and library developers. > o Better error messages involving f-strings by leveraging the > PEG parser machinery. > o The proposed changes would improve the overall consistency of > the language and provide a way for alternative implementations > to accurately implement f-strings. > > *** IMPORTANT: direct all discussions to the discussion thread on > discourse: > https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-701-syntactic-formalization-of-f-strings/2… > *** > > Thanks a lot, everyone for your time! > > Regards from rainy London, > Pablo Galindo Salgado > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list --python-dev(a)python.org > To unsubscribe send an email topython-dev-leave(a)python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived athttps://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/IU4O3… > Code of Conduct:http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

1 0

Feature Request: Adding Way to Annotate Class Variables Distinct from Instance Variables
by sakaic2003＠gmail.com 22 Dec '22

22 Dec '22

Hello folks, I am Chihiro, a.k.a. Frodo821, and this is my first post to this group. I searched for a way to annotate both class variables and instance variables with different types and concluded that there is currently no way to do this. For example, what I want to: ``` class Foo: variable_both_class_and_instance = Field(desc="descriptive string") def __init__(self, value: int): self.variable_both_class_and_instance = value assert isinstance(Foo.variable_both_class_and_instance, Field) assert isinstance(Foo().variable_both_class_and_instance, int) ``` In this example, I want to annotate `Foo.variable_both_class_and_instance` with `Field` when it is accessed as a class variable. On the other hand, I want to annotate `Foo.variable_both_class_and_instance` with `int` when it is accessed as an instance variable. I don't have any smart ideas to accomplish this, but I think `typing.ClassVar` could be extended this like: ``` class Foo: variable_both_class_and_instance: Union[ClassVar[Field], int] = Field(desc="descriptive string") def __init__(self, value: int): self.variable_both_class_and_instance = value assert isinstance(Foo.variable_both_class_and_instance, Field) assert isinstance(Foo().variable_both_class_and_instance, int) ``` Do you have any ideas or comments about this?

4 3

PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings
by Pablo Galindo Salgado 21 Dec '22

21 Dec '22

Hi everyone, I am very excited to share with you a PEP that Batuhan Taskaya, Lysandros Nikolaou and myself have been working on recently: PEP 701 - PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings <https://peps.python.org/pep-0701/>. We believe this will be a great improvement in both the maintainability of CPython and the usability of f-strings. We look forward to hearing what you think about this and to get your feedback! *Here is a TLDR for your convenience:* - The PEP proposes a formalized grammar for f-strings in Python by adding f-strings directly into the Grammar instead of using a two-pass hand-written parser. - This would lift some existing restrictions for f-strings that (we believe) will improve the user experience with f-strings. - Other benefits include: - Reduced maintenance costs for f-string parsing code as well as improved usability for users and library developers. - Better error messages involving f-strings by leveraging the PEG parser machinery. - The proposed changes would improve the overall consistency of the language and provide a way for alternative implementations to accurately implement f-strings. *** IMPORTANT: direct all discussions to the discussion thread on discourse: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-701-syntactic-formalization-of-f-strings/2… <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-701-syntactic-formalization-of-f-strings/2…> *** Thanks a lot, everyone for your time! Regards from rainy London, Pablo Galindo Salgado

1 1

computersmarketing
by jugnu7271＠gmail.com 20 Dec '22

20 Dec '22

I am jugnu25 working for computers marketing PR consultant. With extra than 6 years experience in PR and Digital Industry, helping groups to obtain dreams through streamilining the technique. https://www.computersmarketing.com/

2 1

problem with abandonned lib pyliblo
by Mathieu Picot 20 Dec '22

20 Dec '22

Hi. There is a problem with the lib pyliblo, the source code of the lib is here: https://github.com/dsacre/pyliblo The problem is that the lib is now incompatible with python3.11 because it uses inspect.getargspec function which does not exist anymore. This is very easy to fix, the main problem is that the author Dominic Sacré does not answer anymore to any message (PR, issues, email), so there is no hope he will fix the problem. I am ready to maintain this lib myself, I could simply fork it and rename the lib to pass it to pip list, but all programs using it will have to rename the lib in their requirements. Is there a sort of protocol to do when this happens, in order to replace the source package with a new version ? thanks for your help Mathieu

2 1

Python-Dev December 2022