Mailman 3 December 2014 - Python-ideas

@classproperty, @abc.abstractclasspropery, etc.
by K. Richard Pixley 16 Dec '20

16 Dec '20

There's a whole matrix of these and I'm wondering why the matrix is currently sparse rather than implementing them all. Or rather, why we can't stack them as: class foo(object): @classmethod @property def bar(cls, ...): ... Essentially the permutation are, I think: {'unadorned'|abc.abstract}{'normal'|static|class}{method|property|non-callable attribute}. concreteness implicit first arg type name comments {unadorned} {unadorned} method def foo(): exists now {unadorned} {unadorned} property @property exists now {unadorned} {unadorned} non-callable attribute x = 2 exists now {unadorned} static method @staticmethod exists now {unadorned} static property @staticproperty proposing {unadorned} static non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary {unadorned} class method @classmethod exists now {unadorned} class property @classproperty or @classmethod;@property proposing {unadorned} class non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary abc.abstract {unadorned} method @abc.abstractmethod exists now abc.abstract {unadorned} property @abc.abstractproperty exists now abc.abstract {unadorned} non-callable attribute @abc.abstractattribute or @abc.abstract;@attribute proposing abc.abstract static method @abc.abstractstaticmethod exists now abc.abstract static property @abc.staticproperty proposing abc.abstract static non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary abc.abstract class method @abc.abstractclassmethod exists now abc.abstract class property @abc.abstractclassproperty proposing abc.abstract class non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary I think the meanings of the new ones are pretty straightforward, but in case they are not... @staticproperty - like @property only without an implicit first argument. Allows the property to be called directly from the class without requiring a throw-away instance. @classproperty - like @property, only the implicit first argument to the method is the class. Allows the property to be called directly from the class without requiring a throw-away instance. @abc.abstractattribute - a simple, non-callable variable that must be overridden in subclasses @abc.abstractstaticproperty - like @abc.abstractproperty only for @staticproperty @abc.abstractclassproperty - like @abc.abstractproperty only for @classproperty --rich

10 15

Specify number of items to allocate for array.array() constructor
by Sven Rahmann 21 Feb '20

21 Feb '20

At the moment, the array module of the standard library allows to create arrays of different numeric types and to initialize them from an iterable (eg, another array). What's missing is the possiblity to specify the final size of the array (number of items), especially for large arrays. I'm thinking of suffix arrays (a text indexing data structure) for large texts, eg the human genome and its reverse complement (about 6 billion characters from the alphabet ACGT). The suffix array is a long int array of the same size (8 bytes per number, so it occupies about 48 GB memory). At the moment I am extending an array in chunks of several million items at a time at a time, which is slow and not elegant. The function below also initializes each item in the array to a given value (0 by default). Is there a reason why there the array.array constructor does not allow to simply specify the number of items that should be allocated? (I do not really care about the contents.) Would this be a worthwhile addition to / modification of the array module? My suggestions is to modify array generation in such a way that you could pass an iterator (as now) as second argument, but if you pass a single integer value, it should be treated as the number of items to allocate. Here is my current workaround (which is slow): def filled_array(typecode, n, value=0, bsize=(1<<22)): """returns a new array with given typecode (eg, "l" for long int, as in the array module) with n entries, initialized to the given value (default 0) """ a = array.array(typecode, [value]*bsize) x = array.array(typecode) r = n while r >= bsize: x.extend(a) r -= bsize x.extend([value]*r) return x

14 20

Implicit string literal concatenation considered harmful?
by Guido van Rossum 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

I just spent a few minutes staring at a bug caused by a missing comma -- I got a mysterious argument count error because instead of foo('a', 'b') I had written foo('a' 'b'). This is a fairly common mistake, and IIRC at Google we even had a lint rule against this (there was also a Python dialect used for some specific purpose where this was explicitly forbidden). Now, with modern compiler technology, we can (and in fact do) evaluate compile-time string literal concatenation with the '+' operator, so there's really no reason to support 'a' 'b' any more. (The reason was always rather flimsy; I copied it from C but the reason why it's needed there doesn't really apply to Python, as it is mostly useful inside macros.) Would it be reasonable to start deprecating this and eventually remove it from the language? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

51 165

pep 397
by Liam Marsh 22 Feb '15

22 Feb '15

hello, *the pep 397 says that any python script is able to choose the language version which will run it, between all the versions installed on the computer, using on windows a launcher in the "C:\windows" folder.* can the idle version be chosen like this too, or can the idle "run" command do it? (except it is already like this and I have a problem) thank you, and have a nice day/evening! (and sorry if this sounds irritating)

6 14

python on mobile
by Fetchinson . 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

Hi all, maybe the best list would be python-dev but I don't dare waking the sleeping lions there :) So my question is this: is there a coherent mobile strategy among core dev people? I mean you guys release python for linux/macos/windows and the question is if there are any plans to do the same for a mobile platform. It doesn't have to be android or ios just anything that the core dev team chooses and sticks with. I've been developing python apps for smartphones (mostly hobby projects though) using sl4a but that seems like is dead. Now people suggest me using kivy which seems to be alive but who knows how long. There are some other projects qpython, etc, which are small and equally not so reliable at least looking from the outside. Is kivy now an officially blessed distribution? Since google was so integral to both python (through employing Guido) and android I'd think it would make sense for google to have an official python environment for android in cooperation with the python dev team. Does the PSF has an opinion on this? It would be great if there would be something for mobile phones that we could rely on not going away just as with linux/macos/windows. Or there are some issues which preclude this from the start? Cheers, Daniel -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown

14 33

Extending traceback to (optionally) format and show locals.
by Robert Collins 18 Jan '15

18 Jan '15

For context please see http://bugs.python.org/issue22937 and http://bugs.python.org/issue22936. I have two questions I'm hoping to get answered through this thread: - does the change in question need a PEP? Antoine seemed to think it didn't, as long as it was opt-in (via the unittest CLI etc) - Is my implementation approach sound (for traceback, unittest I think I have covered :))? Implementation wise, I think its useful to work in the current traceback module layout - that is to alter extract_stack to (optionally) include rendered data about locals and then look for that and format it in format_list. I'm sure there is code out there that depends on the quadruple nature of extract_stack though, so I think we need to preserve that. Three strategies occured to me; one is to have parallel functions, one quadruple, one quintuple. A second one is to have the return value of extract_stack be a quintuple when a new keyword parameter include_locals is included. Lastly, and this is my preferred one, if we return a tuple subclass with an attribute containing a dict with the rendered data on the locals; this can be present but None, or even just absent when extract_stack was not asked to include locals. The last option is my preferred one because the other two both imply having a data structure which is likely to break existing code - and while you'd have to opt into having them it seems likely to require a systematic set of upgrades vs having an optional attribute that can be looked up. So - thoughts? -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcollins(a)hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud

4 7

Adding `pathlib.Path` method that would send file to recycle bin
by Ram Rachum 07 Jan '15

07 Jan '15

Hi guys, I want to have a method of `pathlib.Path` that would send a file to the recycle bin. (i.e. soft delete.) What do you think about adding this? I see there's a PyPI package `Send2Trash` that does this, but it would be nice if this was in the standard library. Thanks, Ram.

24 120

Re: [Python-ideas] weakref.WeakKeyDictionary is (basically) useless
by Kevin Norris 31 Dec '14

31 Dec '14

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> wrote: >> Why would you use it? The official documentation mentions >> implementing a [descriptor][1]. See [this paste][2] for a simple >> example of this sort of thing. > > How about something like this (untested): > A cursory glance suggests that might work for my use-case, but I would want to examine it more thoroughly for race conditions and other hazards. In particular, I'd be concerned about the potential performance cost of removing things immediately on finalization (the stdlib implementation uses a semi-lazy approach here, which I still don't entirely understand). I'm also a little nervous about doing anything remotely interesting from a finalizer. With a little fine-tuning, however, this could be pulled into a separate WeakKeyIDDictionary implementation, which would be more modular and easier to work with. -- Kevin Norris

1 0

Python hook just before NameError
by Chris Angelico 31 Dec '14

31 Dec '14

I mainly did up this patch to see how hard it would be, and now it's turned out to be fairly simple, I'm curious as to whether it would actually be useful to people. At the point where a global/builtin name lookup is about to raise NameError, first try calling a Python function, along the same lines as __getattr__. If that function hasn't been defined, raise NameError as normal; but if it has, let it either raise NameError or return some object, which is then used as if the name had been bound to it. Patch is here: http://bugs.python.org/issue23126 The idea is to allow convenient interactive use; auto-importing modules is easy, and importing names from modules ("exp" --> math.exp) can be done easily enough too, given a list of modules to try. It's probably not a good idea to use this in application code, and I definitely wouldn't encourage it in library code, but it has its uses interactively. Thoughts? ChrisA

8 15

weakref.WeakKeyDictionary is (basically) useless
by Kevin Norris 31 Dec '14

31 Dec '14

Let's talk about weakref.WeakKeyDictionary. First, what is it? It's a dictionary whose keys are referenced weakly. That is, the dictionary takes weak references to its keys. If a key is garbage collected, it magically vanishes from the dictionary. This saves programmers much of the trouble of manually culling dead weak references from data structures. Why would you use it? The official documentation mentions implementing a [descriptor][1]. See [this paste][2] for a simple example of this sort of thing. Turning the WeakKeyDictionary into a regular dictionary would be troublesome. Since the descriptor object will (probably) never die, if it used a normal dictionary, it would keep all/most/some/more-than-one instances of Bar() alive forever. While this simple example would be better implemented as a property, or even a bare attribute, it is nice if you have many separate Bar classes and complicated per-property processing. Why is it broken? To go back to our simple example, imagine someone subclasses Bar (let's call the subclass Baz) and implements __eq__() and/or __hash__(). Instances of Baz may not work at all (if __hash__ is None) or they may "work" but behave nonsensically (all values-equal instances of Baz will have the same .foo attribute - imagine trying to track that bug down!). While we could forbid such a subclass in our API docs, this runs afoul of the open/closed principle. What can we do about it? It's possible someone is relying on this behavior, so we probably should not change the existing class. Instead, we can offer a new class called, say, WeakKeyIDDictionary. Said class would use object identity instead of object equality/hashing to uniquify keys. It would also reference keys weakly, just like WeakKeyDictionary does now. Implementing such a class is somewhat tricky, since weak references are difficult to reason about correctly. I've written up a [simplistic prototype][3], but I'm concerned about both performance and correctness. Specifically, I know that I need to call _remove_dead_refs() periodically, but I don't see where I can do that without compromising performance (e.g. making key lookup O(n) is a Bad Idea). I also would note it looks nothing like the stdlib implementations of WeakKey/ValueDictionary, which finagle raw weakrefs directly. These problems are related, of course, since the stdlib uses finalizer callbacks to cull dead references as they die. Frankly, the stdlib's code looks incredibly hairy to me and I doubt I could correctly re-implement it. Finally, I've no idea if it's subject to race conditions or other issues (it is a completely untested example I threw together in 5 minutes). Because this class is simultaneously useful and hard to write correctly, it would be a nice addition to the standard library (probably not in the form I've written it!), or failing that, some other library. I've Googled for such a library and come up empty. Should I submit a bug, a PEP, or is this whole idea just stupid? [1]: https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#implementing-descriptors [2]: http://pastebin.com/90j2ZAqC [3]: http://pastebin.com/cpZh2bTa -- Kevin Norris

3 2