Mailman 3 PEP 380 - Python-Dev

newer
404 in (important) documentation...

PEP 380

Guido van Rossum

24 Nov 2011 24 Nov '11

12:28 a.m.

Mea culpa for not keeping track, but what's the status of PEP 380? I really want this in Python 3.3! -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

Show replies by date

Nick Coghlan

24 Nov 24 Nov

4:06 a.m.

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

...

Mea culpa for not keeping track, but what's the status of PEP 380? I really want this in Python 3.3!

There are two relevant tracker issues (both with me for the moment). The main tracker issue for PEP 380 is here: http://bugs.python.org/issue11682 That's really just missing the doc updates - I haven't had a chance to look at Zbyszek's latest offering on that front, but it shouldn't be far off being complete (the *text* in his previous docs patch actually seemed reasonable - I mainly objected to way it was organised). However, the PEP 380 test suite updates have a dependency on a new dis module feature that provides an iterator over a structured description of bytecode instructions: http://bugs.python.org/issue11816 I find Meador's suggestion to change the name of the new API to something involving the word "instruction" appealing, so I plan to do that, which will have a knock-on effect on the tests in the PEP 380 branch. However, even once I get that done, Raymond specifically said he wanted to review the dis module patch before I check it in, so I don't plan to commit it until he gives the OK (either because he reviewed it, or because he decides he's OK with it going in without his review and he can review and potentially update it in Mercurial any time before 3.3 is released). I currently plan to update my working branches for both of those on the 3rd of December, so hopefully they'll be ready to go within the next couple of weeks. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

Michael Foord

25 Nov 25 Nov

10:14 p.m.

On 24 Nov 2011, at 04:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:

...

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

...
Mea culpa for not keeping track, but what's the status of PEP 380? I really want this in Python 3.3!

There are two relevant tracker issues (both with me for the moment).

The main tracker issue for PEP 380 is here: http://bugs.python.org/issue11682

That's really just missing the doc updates - I haven't had a chance to look at Zbyszek's latest offering on that front, but it shouldn't be far off being complete (the *text* in his previous docs patch actually seemed reasonable - I mainly objected to way it was organised).

However, the PEP 380 test suite updates have a dependency on a new dis module feature that provides an iterator over a structured description of bytecode instructions: http://bugs.python.org/issue11816

Is it necessary to test parts of PEP 380 through bytecode structures rather than semantics? Those tests aren't going to be usable by other implementations. Michael

...

I find Meador's suggestion to change the name of the new API to something involving the word "instruction" appealing, so I plan to do that, which will have a knock-on effect on the tests in the PEP 380 branch. However, even once I get that done, Raymond specifically said he wanted to review the dis module patch before I check it in, so I don't plan to commit it until he gives the OK (either because he reviewed it, or because he decides he's OK with it going in without his review and he can review and potentially update it in Mercurial any time before 3.3 is released).

I currently plan to update my working branches for both of those on the 3rd of December, so hopefully they'll be ready to go within the next couple of weeks.

Cheers, Nick.

-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.u...

-- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html

Nick Coghlan

26 Nov 26 Nov

4:39 a.m.

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michael Foord wrote:

...

On 24 Nov 2011, at 04:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:

...
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

...
Mea culpa for not keeping track, but what's the status of PEP 380? I really want this in Python 3.3!

There are two relevant tracker issues (both with me for the moment).

The main tracker issue for PEP 380 is here: http://bugs.python.org/issue11682

That's really just missing the doc updates - I haven't had a chance to look at Zbyszek's latest offering on that front, but it shouldn't be far off being complete (the *text* in his previous docs patch actually seemed reasonable - I mainly objected to way it was organised).

However, the PEP 380 test suite updates have a dependency on a new dis module feature that provides an iterator over a structured description of bytecode instructions: http://bugs.python.org/issue11816

Is it necessary to test parts of PEP 380 through bytecode structures rather than semantics? Those tests aren't going to be usable by other implementations.

The affected tests aren't testing the PEP 380 semantics, they're specifically testing CPython's bytecode generation for yield from expressions and disassembly of same. Just because they aren't of any interest to other implementations doesn't mean *we* don't need them :) There are plenty of behavioural tests to go along with the bytecode specific ones, and those *will* be useful to other implementations. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

Maciej Fijalkowski

7:46 a.m.

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

...

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michael Foord wrote:

...
On 24 Nov 2011, at 04:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:

...
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

...
Mea culpa for not keeping track, but what's the status of PEP 380? I really want this in Python 3.3!

There are two relevant tracker issues (both with me for the moment).

The main tracker issue for PEP 380 is here: http://bugs.python.org/issue11682

That's really just missing the doc updates - I haven't had a chance to look at Zbyszek's latest offering on that front, but it shouldn't be far off being complete (the *text* in his previous docs patch actually seemed reasonable - I mainly objected to way it was organised).

However, the PEP 380 test suite updates have a dependency on a new dis module feature that provides an iterator over a structured description of bytecode instructions: http://bugs.python.org/issue11816

Is it necessary to test parts of PEP 380 through bytecode structures rather than semantics? Those tests aren't going to be usable by other implementations.

The affected tests aren't testing the PEP 380 semantics, they're specifically testing CPython's bytecode generation for yield from expressions and disassembly of same. Just because they aren't of any interest to other implementations doesn't mean *we* don't need them :)

There are plenty of behavioural tests to go along with the bytecode specific ones, and those *will* be useful to other implementations.

Cheers, Nick.

I'm with nick on this one, seems like a very useful test, just remember to mark it as @impl_detail (or however the decorator is called). Cheers, fijal

Michael Foord

1:46 p.m.

On 26/11/2011 07:46, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:

...

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

...
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michael Foord wrote:

...
On 24 Nov 2011, at 04:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:

...
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

...
Mea culpa for not keeping track, but what's the status of PEP 380? I really want this in Python 3.3! There are two relevant tracker issues (both with me for the moment).

The main tracker issue for PEP 380 is here: http://bugs.python.org/issue11682

That's really just missing the doc updates - I haven't had a chance to look at Zbyszek's latest offering on that front, but it shouldn't be far off being complete (the *text* in his previous docs patch actually seemed reasonable - I mainly objected to way it was organised).

However, the PEP 380 test suite updates have a dependency on a new dis module feature that provides an iterator over a structured description of bytecode instructions: http://bugs.python.org/issue11816

Is it necessary to test parts of PEP 380 through bytecode structures rather than semantics? Those tests aren't going to be usable by other implementations. The affected tests aren't testing the PEP 380 semantics, they're specifically testing CPython's bytecode generation for yield from expressions and disassembly of same. Just because they aren't of any interest to other implementations doesn't mean *we* don't need them :)

There are plenty of behavioural tests to go along with the bytecode specific ones, and those *will* be useful to other implementations.

Cheers, Nick.

I'm with nick on this one, seems like a very useful test, just remember to mark it as @impl_detail (or however the decorator is called).

Fair enough. :-) If other tests are failing (the semantics are wrong) then having a test that shows you the semantics are screwed because the bytecode has been incorrectly generated will be a useful diagnostic tool. On the other hand it is hard to see that bytecode generation could be "wrong" without it affecting some test of semantics that should also fail - so as tests in their own right the bytecode tests *must* be superfluous (or there is some aspect of the semantics that is *only* tested through the bytecode and that seems bad, particularly for other implementations). All the best, Michael

...

Cheers, fijal

4528

Age (days ago)

4530

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

5 comments

4 participants

participants (4)

Guido van Rossum
Maciej Fijalkowski
Michael Foord
Nick Coghlan

PEP 380

Guido van Rossum

Nick Coghlan

Michael Foord

Nick Coghlan

Maciej Fijalkowski

Michael Foord

tags

participants (4)