From gerrit@nl.linux.org Thu Mar 2 17:04:04 2000 From: gerrit@nl.linux.org (Gerrit Holl) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:04:04 +0100 Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 Message-ID: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> Hello, what about creating a future-sig or a 2.0-sig? Because 2.0 will be incompatible, many things can be changed - do you think it will be meaningful to create a sig for this subject? A thing I'd like to discuss: ''.find returns -1 if it doesn't find a certain string - None would be more clear, in my opinion. This, and much more, could be discussed in such a SIG. What do you think? The retire date would be the date of the 2.0 release or feature freeze - unknown dus. regards, Gerrit. -- Plies korekt enie bet ingglisj joe encauntur in mai imil mesusj! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- http://www.geekcode.com Version: 3.12 GCS dpu s-:-- a14 C++++>$ UL++ P--- L+++ E--- W++ N o? K? w--- !O !M !V PS+ PE? Y? PGP-- t- 5? X? R- tv- b+(++) DI D+ G++ !e !r !y -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- From jeremy@cnri.reston.va.us Thu Mar 2 17:18:46 2000 From: jeremy@cnri.reston.va.us (Jeremy Hylton) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:18:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 In-Reply-To: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> References: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> Message-ID: <14526.41590.166148.909919@goon.cnri.reston.va.us> >>>>> "GH" == Gerrit Holl writes: GH> Hello, what about creating a future-sig or a 2.0-sig? Because GH> 2.0 will be incompatible, many things can be changed - do you GH> think it will be meaningful to create a sig for this subject? GH> A thing I'd like to discuss: ''.find returns -1 if it doesn't GH> find a certain string - None would be more clear, in my GH> opinion. This, and much more, could be discussed in such a SIG. GH> What do you think? GH> The retire date would be the date of the 2.0 release or feature GH> freeze - unknown dus. Well the name we've been using is "Python 3000" or Py3K <0.7 wink>, but that's not really important. The discussion for this can take place on python-dev. I don't think there's any need for a sig. Furthermore, the substantial overlap between such a sig and python-dev would cause trouble. Jeremy From bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us (Barry A. Warsaw) Thu Mar 2 17:30:01 2000 From: bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us (Barry A. Warsaw) (Barry A. Warsaw) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:30:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 References: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> <14526.41590.166148.909919@goon.cnri.reston.va.us> Message-ID: <14526.42265.720173.8608@anthem.cnri.reston.va.us> >>>>> "JH" == Jeremy Hylton writes: JH> The discussion for this can take place on python-dev. I don't JH> think there's any need for a sig. Furthermore, the JH> substantial overlap between such a sig and python-dev would JH> cause trouble. Agreed. From gerrit@nl.linux.org Thu Mar 2 17:28:59 2000 From: gerrit@nl.linux.org (Gerrit Holl) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:28:59 +0100 Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 In-Reply-To: <14526.41590.166148.909919@goon.cnri.reston.va.us>; from jeremy@cnri.reston.va.us on Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 12:18:46PM -0500 References: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> <14526.41590.166148.909919@goon.cnri.reston.va.us> Message-ID: <20000302182859.A27073@nl.linux.org> > >>>>> "GH" == Gerrit Holl writes: > > GH> Hello, what about creating a future-sig or a 2.0-sig? Because > GH> 2.0 will be incompatible, many things can be changed - do you > GH> think it will be meaningful to create a sig for this subject? ... > GH> What do you think? ... > The discussion for this can take place on python-dev. I don't think > there's any need for a sig. Furthermore, the substantial overlap > between such a sig and python-dev would cause trouble. I tried to subscribe to python-dev a while ago, but I got the response that it's on invitation only. It seems that python-dev is a technical development list. This list does not have to be very technical - no knowledge about Python's internals is required to discuss on P3K. regards, Gerrit. -- Plies korekt enie bet ingglisj joe encauntur in mai imil mesusj! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- http://www.geekcode.com Version: 3.12 GCS dpu s-:-- a14 C++++>$ UL++ P--- L+++ E--- W++ N o? K? w--- !O !M !V PS+ PE? Y? PGP-- t- 5? X? R- tv- b+(++) DI D+ G++ !e !r !y -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- From gstein@lyra.org Thu Mar 2 17:45:15 2000 From: gstein@lyra.org (Greg Stein) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:45:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 In-Reply-To: <20000302182859.A27073@nl.linux.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Gerrit Holl wrote: > > > >>>>> "GH" == Gerrit Holl writes: > > > > GH> Hello, what about creating a future-sig or a 2.0-sig? Because > > GH> 2.0 will be incompatible, many things can be changed - do you > > GH> think it will be meaningful to create a sig for this subject? ... > > The discussion for this can take place on python-dev. I don't think > > there's any need for a sig. Furthermore, the substantial overlap > > between such a sig and python-dev would cause trouble. > > I tried to subscribe to python-dev a while ago, but I got the response > that it's on invitation only. It seems that python-dev is a technical > development list. This list does not have to be very technical - no > knowledge about Python's internals is required to discuss on P3K. The SIG discussion would not remain non-technical for long. Something like this devolves too easily into implementation. comp.lang.python satisfies most needs for discussion about futures. python-dev is simply a gathering of gearheads that get the heavy lifting done and/or discuss the hard stuff. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ From gerrit@nl.linux.org Thu Mar 2 17:04:04 2000 From: gerrit@nl.linux.org (Gerrit Holl) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:04:04 +0100 Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 Message-ID: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> Hello, what about creating a future-sig or a 2.0-sig? Because 2.0 will be incompatible, many things can be changed - do you think it will be meaningful to create a sig for this subject? A thing I'd like to discuss: ''.find returns -1 if it doesn't find a certain string - None would be more clear, in my opinion. This, and much more, could be discussed in such a SIG. What do you think? The retire date would be the date of the 2.0 release or feature freeze - unknown dus. regards, Gerrit. -- Plies korekt enie bet ingglisj joe encauntur in mai imil mesusj! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- http://www.geekcode.com Version: 3.12 GCS dpu s-:-- a14 C++++>$ UL++ P--- L+++ E--- W++ N o? K? w--- !O !M !V PS+ PE? Y? PGP-- t- 5? X? R- tv- b+(++) DI D+ G++ !e !r !y -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- From jeremy@cnri.reston.va.us Thu Mar 2 17:18:46 2000 From: jeremy@cnri.reston.va.us (Jeremy Hylton) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:18:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 In-Reply-To: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> References: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> Message-ID: <14526.41590.166148.909919@goon.cnri.reston.va.us> >>>>> "GH" == Gerrit Holl writes: GH> Hello, what about creating a future-sig or a 2.0-sig? Because GH> 2.0 will be incompatible, many things can be changed - do you GH> think it will be meaningful to create a sig for this subject? GH> A thing I'd like to discuss: ''.find returns -1 if it doesn't GH> find a certain string - None would be more clear, in my GH> opinion. This, and much more, could be discussed in such a SIG. GH> What do you think? GH> The retire date would be the date of the 2.0 release or feature GH> freeze - unknown dus. Well the name we've been using is "Python 3000" or Py3K <0.7 wink>, but that's not really important. The discussion for this can take place on python-dev. I don't think there's any need for a sig. Furthermore, the substantial overlap between such a sig and python-dev would cause trouble. Jeremy From bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us (Barry A. Warsaw) Thu Mar 2 17:30:01 2000 From: bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us (Barry A. Warsaw) (Barry A. Warsaw) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:30:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 References: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> <14526.41590.166148.909919@goon.cnri.reston.va.us> Message-ID: <14526.42265.720173.8608@anthem.cnri.reston.va.us> >>>>> "JH" == Jeremy Hylton writes: JH> The discussion for this can take place on python-dev. I don't JH> think there's any need for a sig. Furthermore, the JH> substantial overlap between such a sig and python-dev would JH> cause trouble. Agreed. From gerrit@nl.linux.org Thu Mar 2 17:28:59 2000 From: gerrit@nl.linux.org (Gerrit Holl) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:28:59 +0100 Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 In-Reply-To: <14526.41590.166148.909919@goon.cnri.reston.va.us>; from jeremy@cnri.reston.va.us on Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 12:18:46PM -0500 References: <20000302180403.A26147@nl.linux.org> <14526.41590.166148.909919@goon.cnri.reston.va.us> Message-ID: <20000302182859.A27073@nl.linux.org> > >>>>> "GH" == Gerrit Holl writes: > > GH> Hello, what about creating a future-sig or a 2.0-sig? Because > GH> 2.0 will be incompatible, many things can be changed - do you > GH> think it will be meaningful to create a sig for this subject? ... > GH> What do you think? ... > The discussion for this can take place on python-dev. I don't think > there's any need for a sig. Furthermore, the substantial overlap > between such a sig and python-dev would cause trouble. I tried to subscribe to python-dev a while ago, but I got the response that it's on invitation only. It seems that python-dev is a technical development list. This list does not have to be very technical - no knowledge about Python's internals is required to discuss on P3K. regards, Gerrit. -- Plies korekt enie bet ingglisj joe encauntur in mai imil mesusj! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- http://www.geekcode.com Version: 3.12 GCS dpu s-:-- a14 C++++>$ UL++ P--- L+++ E--- W++ N o? K? w--- !O !M !V PS+ PE? Y? PGP-- t- 5? X? R- tv- b+(++) DI D+ G++ !e !r !y -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- From gstein@lyra.org Thu Mar 2 17:45:15 2000 From: gstein@lyra.org (Greg Stein) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:45:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [meta-sig] SIG discussing future, Python 2.0 In-Reply-To: <20000302182859.A27073@nl.linux.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Gerrit Holl wrote: > > > >>>>> "GH" == Gerrit Holl writes: > > > > GH> Hello, what about creating a future-sig or a 2.0-sig? Because > > GH> 2.0 will be incompatible, many things can be changed - do you > > GH> think it will be meaningful to create a sig for this subject? ... > > The discussion for this can take place on python-dev. I don't think > > there's any need for a sig. Furthermore, the substantial overlap > > between such a sig and python-dev would cause trouble. > > I tried to subscribe to python-dev a while ago, but I got the response > that it's on invitation only. It seems that python-dev is a technical > development list. This list does not have to be very technical - no > knowledge about Python's internals is required to discuss on P3K. The SIG discussion would not remain non-technical for long. Something like this devolves too easily into implementation. comp.lang.python satisfies most needs for discussion about futures. python-dev is simply a gathering of gearheads that get the heavy lifting done and/or discuss the hard stuff. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/