[Python-Dev] PEP 380

Maciej Fijalkowski fijall at gmail.com
Sat Nov 26 08:46:29 CET 2011

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michael Foord
> <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 24 Nov 2011, at 04:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> 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


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list