Uh, life has been busy.
Will probably send this one out this weekend some time so please get corrections in before then.
PyCon_ 2005 is well underway. The schedule is in the process of being finalized (just figuring out the order of the talks). And there is still time for the early-bird registration price of $175 ($125 students) before it expires on January 28th.
Some day I will be all caught up with the Summaries...
.. _PyCon: http://www.pycon.org
[for emails on PEP updates, subscribe to python-checkins_ and choose the 'PEP'
A proto-PEP covering the __source__ proposal from the
last summary_ has been
posted to python-dev.
PEP 338_ proposes how to modify the '-m' modifier so as to be able to
modules contained within packages.
.. _python-checkins: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-checkins .. _PEP 338: http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0338.html
PEP: __source__ proposal <>__
PEP 338: Executing modules inside packages with '-m' <>__
The xmllib module was deprecated but not listed in
PEP 4_. What does one
Well, this led to a long discussion on how to handle module deprecation.
With the 'warning' module now in existence, PEP 4 seemed to be less important. It was generally agreed that listing modules in PEP 4 was no longer needed. It was also agreed that deleting deprecated modules was not needed; it breaks code and disk space is cheap.
It seems that no longer listing documentation and adding a deprecation warning is what is needed to properly deprecate a module. By no longer listing documentation new programmers will not use the code since they won't know about it. And adding the warning will let old users know that they should be using something else.
.. _PEP 4: http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0004.html
Deprecated xmllib module <>__
Rewriting PEP4 <>__
An article_ in ACM TechNews that covered 2.4 had several mentions that Python was "slow" while justifying the slowness (whether it be flexibility or being fast enough). Guido (rightfully) didn't love all of the "slow" mentions which I am sure we have all heard at some point or another.
The suggestions started to pour in on how to combat this. The initial one was to have a native compiler. The thinking was that if we compiled to a native executable that people psychologically would stop the association of Python being interpreted which is supposed to be slow. Some people didn't love this idea since a native compiler is not an easy thing. Others suggested including Pyrex with CPython, but didn't catch on (maintenance issue plus one might say Pyrex is not the most Pythonic solution). This didn't get anywhere in the end beyond the idea of a SIG about the various bundling tools (py2app, py2exe, etc.).
The other idea was to just stop worrying about speed and move on stomping out bugs and making Python functionally more useful. With modules in the stdlib being rewritten in C for performance reasons it was suggested we are putting out the perception that performance is important to us. Several other people also suggested that we just not mention speed as a big deal in release notes and such.
This also tied into the idea that managers don't worry too much about speed as much as being able to hire a bunch of Python programmers. This led to the suggestion of also emphasizing that Python is very easy to learn and thus is a moot point. There are a good number of Python programmers, though; Stephan Deibel had some rough calculations that put the number at about 750K Python developers worldwide (give or take; rough middle point of two different calculations).
.. _article: http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/28026-1.html
2.4 news reaches interesting places <>__
and CPPFLAGS env vars
Extension modules now compile with directories specified in the LDFLAGS
min and max now have a 'key' argument like list.sort