[Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X

[Jesse Noller]

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Jesse Noller wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +0000, lutz at rmi.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted
>>>>> things
>>>>> on users that they did not fully work through themselves.  Unicode is
>>>>> prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in
>>>>> this regard, the implications of the 3.X string solution remain to be
>>>>> fully resolved in the 3.X standard library to this day.  What is a
>>>>> common Python user to make of that?
>>>>
>>>> Certainly, this was my impression as well, after all the Web-SIG
>>>> discussions
>>>> regarding the state of the stdlib in 3.x with respect to URL parsing,
>>>> joining, opening, etc.
>>>
>>> Nothing is set in stone; if something is incredibly painful, or worse
>>> yet broken, then someone needs to file a bug, bring it to this list,
>>> or bring up a patch.
>>
>> Or walk away.
>>
>
> Ok. If you want.
>
>>> This is code we're talking about - nothing is set
>>> in stone, and if something is criminally broken it needs to be first
>>> identified, and then fixed.
>>>
>>>> To be honest, I'm waiting to see some sort of tutorial(s) for using 3.x
>>>> that
>>>> actually addresses these kinds of stdlib usage issues, so that I don't
>>>> have
>>>> to think about it or futz around with experimenting, possibly to find
>>>> that
>>>> some things can't be done at all.
>>>
>>> I guess tutorial welcome, rather than patch welcome then ;)
>>
>> The only folks who can write the tutorial are the ones who have already
>> drunk the koolaid.  Note that I've been making my living with Python for
>> about twelve years now, and would *like* to use Python3, but can't, yet,
>> and therefore haven't taken the first sip.
>
> Why can't you? Is it a bug? Let's file it and fix it. Is it that you need a
> dependency ported? Cool - let's bring it up to the maintainers, or this
> list, or ask the PSF to push resources into helping port. Anything but
> nothing.
>
> If what you're saying is that python 3 is a completely unsuitable platform,
> well, then yeah - we can all "fix" it or walk away.
>
>>
>>>> IOW, 3.x has broken TOOOWTDI for me in some areas.  There may be obvious
>>>> ways to do it, but, as per the Zen of Python, "that way may not be
>>>> obvious
>>>> at first unless you're Dutch".  ;-)
>>>
>>> What areas. We need specifics which can either be:
>>>
>>> 1> Shot down.
>>> 2> Turned into bugs, so they can be fixed
>>> 3> Documented in the core documentation.
>>
>> That's bloody ironic in a thread which had pointed at reasons why people
>> are not even considering Py3 for their projects:  those folks won't even
>> find the issues due to the lack of confidence in the suitability of the
>> platform.
>
> What I saw was a thread about some issues in email, and cgi. We have some
> work being done to address the issue. This will help resolve some of the
> issues.
>
> I'd there are other issues, then we should step up and either help, or get
> out ofthe way. Arguing about the viability of a platform we knew would take
> a bit for adoption is silly and breeds ill will.
>

s/I'd/If - stupid phone.