A problem was recently reported on wxPython-dev that smells strongly of this issue with GTK changing the LC_NUMERIC locale to something other than 'C' causing subsequent severe problems in the handling of floats by the Python interpreter.
I went looking for Christian's proposed PEP (to make Python more locale agnostic when it comes to LC_NUMERIC), and didn't find it listed in PEP 0. The last activity on Gustavo's patch was in December 2003, and the last comment in September.
What's the current state of this?
Regards, Nick.
A Qui, 2004-05-20 às 01:22, Nick Coghlan escreveu:
A problem was recently reported on wxPython-dev that smells strongly of this issue with GTK changing the LC_NUMERIC locale to something other than 'C' causing subsequent severe problems in the handling of floats by the Python interpreter.
I went looking for Christian's proposed PEP (to make Python more locale agnostic when it comes to LC_NUMERIC), and didn't find it listed in PEP 0. The last activity on Gustavo's patch was in December 2003, and the last comment in September.
What's the current state of this?
AFAICT, there was interest in including this patch even without a full PEP. Christian is currently on vacation. There is a unoficial PEP draft at http://www.async.com.br/~kiko/pep-numeric.txt
I stopped working on the patch because there was nothing more to do. But I'm willing to do some more effort as necessary to include this in Python 2.4.
Best regards.
Hello there,
Now that the LC_NUMERIC patch has gone in (and we're set to live with it for the forseeable future) would it make sense to update the PEP and have it added to the PEP list? It would at least count as "complete" documentation for the change in the upcoming What's New document.
How do people feel about this?
Take care, -- Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 261 2331
Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
Hello there,
Now that the LC_NUMERIC patch has gone in (and we're set to livewith it for the forseeable future) would it make sense to update the PEP and have it added to the PEP list? It would at least count as "complete" documentation for the change in the upcoming What's New document.
How do people feel about this?
I don't like documentation inside PEPs. Documentation should live inside the documentation.
Regards, Martin
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 01:33:49AM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
Hello there,
Now that the LC_NUMERIC patch has gone in (and we're set to live with it for the forseeable future) would it make sense to update the PEP and have it added to the PEP list? It would at least count as "complete" documentation for the change in the upcoming What's New document.
How do people feel about this?
I don't like documentation inside PEPs. Documentation should live inside the documentation.
Well, maybe I should have used the word "change rationale" instead of documentation. In any case, the document describes the original problem statement, potential solutions, and the process through which a solution was devised.
Is the general opinion it's not worth being published?
Take care, -- Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 261 2331
Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
Well, maybe I should have used the word "change rationale" instead of documentation. In any case, the document describes the original problem statement, potential solutions, and the process through which a solution was devised.
Is the general opinion it's not worth being published?
In general, such information is not useful. For those interested, Misc/NEWS keeps track of all changes, but nobody will read through all of them. People are more interested in how the version of Python behaves that they use, and that should be documented.
Regards, Martin
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 01:33:49AM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
I don't like documentation inside PEPs. Documentation should live inside the documentation.
On Friday 11 June 2004 07:37 pm, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
Well, maybe I should have used the word "change rationale" instead of documentation. In any case, the document describes the original problem statement, potential solutions, and the process through which a solution was devised.
This is exactly the historical record PEPs were intended to provide; I think the PEP should be complete with respect to the rationale.
The documentation should certainly describe the final behavior, but that shouldn't preclude a finished PEP.
-Fred
participants (5)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Christian Robottom Reis -
Fred L. Drake, Jr. -
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro -
Nick Coghlan