All the PEPs for 2.1 are supposed to be complete for Dec. 16, and some of those PEPs are pretty complicated. I'm a bit worried that it's been so quiet on python-dev lately, especially after the previous two weeks of lively discussion. (And no comments on my Python/Distutils PEP at all -- not even an assigned number... <sniffle>) --amk
No doubt. I'm still waiting for some feedback on my coercion patch. I'd write a PEP but I don't think it would help. Marc's web page already explains things in detail. Also, I don't want to spend too much time going down a path that Guido and the other developers are not going to accept. The patch makes some pretty major changes to Python's internals (for the better I think). If something is going to be done for 2.1 then it should happen sooner rather than later. Neil
Should Marc's Web page be turned into the PEP then? I don't have time to read a patch, but I do have time to read a PEP. Jeremy
Jeremy Hylton wrote:
Should Marc's Web page be turned into the PEP then? I don't have time to read a patch, but I do have time to read a PEP.
If someone could do this, I'd appreciate it. I like Neil's idea of using a type flag to signal "new style number", but apart from that, I think that the web page pretty much makes things clear. The patch would need to be updated to Python 2.0, though -- don't have time for this myself, so it's up to you. I completely agree with Neil, that these things should be done now rather than later: the current coercion mechanism is a major bottleneck when it comes to implementing new types in C that are supposed to interoperate with existing builtin types. What the patch basically does is add Python's instance coercion support to the C level -- in a backward compatible way. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 12:58:10AM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
The patch would need to be updated to Python 2.0, though -- don't have time for this myself, so it's up to you.
My patch _is_ up to date. My original message also included a brief description of what the patch does. For more details look at the URL to Marc's page that I provided. There is also PEP 208 (which should probably be updated). Marc and Moshe: who is currently championing PEP 207 and 208? Barry or Jeremy: the formatting of 208 on sourceforge seems to be screwy. Part of the extended print PEP seems to be included. I'll increase the traffic on this list yet. :) Neil
[Neil Schemenauer]
Yes; PEP 208 should be self-contained.
PEP 208 is in a severely broken state. This is the full content of pep-0208.txt: ==================================== PEP: 208 Title: Reworking the Coercion Model Version: $Revision: 1.1 $ Owner: davida@activestate.com (David Ascher) Python-Version: 2.1 Status: Incomplete Local Variables: mode: indented-text indent-tabs-mode: nil End: ==================================== No change has been checked in since this original skeleton was added in the middle of July. So I guess somebody has been uploading damaged HTML for 208 without going thru CVS and the HTML generation process. Nothing Barry or Jeremy can do about that: somebody has to update the .txt file.
I'll increase the traffic on this list yet. :)
Guido will eventually chime in on the coercions patch, but is on vacation until next Monday (however, AFAIK, he didn't release anything first <wink>). I'll chime in too, but am almost in the same boat. here-yet-absent-ly y'rs - tim
Neil Schemenauer wrote:
Cool... sorry, but I didn't have time to look closely.
Not me -- got no time to spare. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
"NS" == Neil Schemenauer <nas@arctrix.com> writes:
NS> Barry or Jeremy: the formatting of 208 on sourceforge seems to NS> be screwy. Part of the extended print PEP seems to be NS> included. Something's really screwed up here. The pep-0208.txt file is almost empty; it doesn't seem to contain any of the text (MAL's I'm assuming) that I see on the web page. I just did a "cvs up" and a "cvs log" and I don't see anything new checked in for pep 208. Did somebody forget to commit their changes to CVS? -Barry
On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 02:19:54PM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: [ The HTML version of PEP 208 is screwed ]
Did somebody forget to commit their changes to CVS?
-rw-rw-r-- 1 nowonder python 25515 Nov 10 09:31 pep-0208.html Peter-SK wrote these versions to disk, it seems, but it could have been edited later. Maybe he can check his .txt version to see whether that's garbled as well ? -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 05:32:30PM -0500, Andrew Kuchling wrote:
I'm a bit worried that it's been so quiet on python-dev lately, especially after the previous two weeks of lively discussion.
I'll appologize for my silence, but I can't speak for the rest of -dev ;) I'm going to be silent for a few months more, though, as I'm swamped in work and supposed to replace my boss during his 2-month vacation. I'll spend what little time I have on catalog-sig rather than -dev issues, though I'll try to keep up with the messages on -dev at least ;P -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
No doubt. I'm still waiting for some feedback on my coercion patch. I'd write a PEP but I don't think it would help. Marc's web page already explains things in detail. Also, I don't want to spend too much time going down a path that Guido and the other developers are not going to accept. The patch makes some pretty major changes to Python's internals (for the better I think). If something is going to be done for 2.1 then it should happen sooner rather than later. Neil
Should Marc's Web page be turned into the PEP then? I don't have time to read a patch, but I do have time to read a PEP. Jeremy
Jeremy Hylton wrote:
Should Marc's Web page be turned into the PEP then? I don't have time to read a patch, but I do have time to read a PEP.
If someone could do this, I'd appreciate it. I like Neil's idea of using a type flag to signal "new style number", but apart from that, I think that the web page pretty much makes things clear. The patch would need to be updated to Python 2.0, though -- don't have time for this myself, so it's up to you. I completely agree with Neil, that these things should be done now rather than later: the current coercion mechanism is a major bottleneck when it comes to implementing new types in C that are supposed to interoperate with existing builtin types. What the patch basically does is add Python's instance coercion support to the C level -- in a backward compatible way. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 12:58:10AM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
The patch would need to be updated to Python 2.0, though -- don't have time for this myself, so it's up to you.
My patch _is_ up to date. My original message also included a brief description of what the patch does. For more details look at the URL to Marc's page that I provided. There is also PEP 208 (which should probably be updated). Marc and Moshe: who is currently championing PEP 207 and 208? Barry or Jeremy: the formatting of 208 on sourceforge seems to be screwy. Part of the extended print PEP seems to be included. I'll increase the traffic on this list yet. :) Neil
[Neil Schemenauer]
Yes; PEP 208 should be self-contained.
PEP 208 is in a severely broken state. This is the full content of pep-0208.txt: ==================================== PEP: 208 Title: Reworking the Coercion Model Version: $Revision: 1.1 $ Owner: davida@activestate.com (David Ascher) Python-Version: 2.1 Status: Incomplete Local Variables: mode: indented-text indent-tabs-mode: nil End: ==================================== No change has been checked in since this original skeleton was added in the middle of July. So I guess somebody has been uploading damaged HTML for 208 without going thru CVS and the HTML generation process. Nothing Barry or Jeremy can do about that: somebody has to update the .txt file.
I'll increase the traffic on this list yet. :)
Guido will eventually chime in on the coercions patch, but is on vacation until next Monday (however, AFAIK, he didn't release anything first <wink>). I'll chime in too, but am almost in the same boat. here-yet-absent-ly y'rs - tim
Neil Schemenauer wrote:
Cool... sorry, but I didn't have time to look closely.
Not me -- got no time to spare. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
"NS" == Neil Schemenauer <nas@arctrix.com> writes:
NS> Barry or Jeremy: the formatting of 208 on sourceforge seems to NS> be screwy. Part of the extended print PEP seems to be NS> included. Something's really screwed up here. The pep-0208.txt file is almost empty; it doesn't seem to contain any of the text (MAL's I'm assuming) that I see on the web page. I just did a "cvs up" and a "cvs log" and I don't see anything new checked in for pep 208. Did somebody forget to commit their changes to CVS? -Barry
On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 02:19:54PM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: [ The HTML version of PEP 208 is screwed ]
Did somebody forget to commit their changes to CVS?
-rw-rw-r-- 1 nowonder python 25515 Nov 10 09:31 pep-0208.html Peter-SK wrote these versions to disk, it seems, but it could have been edited later. Maybe he can check his .txt version to see whether that's garbled as well ? -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 05:32:30PM -0500, Andrew Kuchling wrote:
I'm a bit worried that it's been so quiet on python-dev lately, especially after the previous two weeks of lively discussion.
I'll appologize for my silence, but I can't speak for the rest of -dev ;) I'm going to be silent for a few months more, though, as I'm swamped in work and supposed to replace my boss during his 2-month vacation. I'll spend what little time I have on catalog-sig rather than -dev issues, though I'll try to keep up with the messages on -dev at least ;P -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
participants (8)
-
Andrew Kuchling -
barry＠digicool.com -
Jeremy Hylton -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Moshe Zadka -
Neil Schemenauer -
Thomas Wouters -
Tim Peters