Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)
On Jun 30, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> >> Another addition could be a new subsection on grouping (chunking) that >> would discuss post-processing of grouper (as discussed above), as well as >> other recipes, including ones specific to strings and sequences. It would >> essentially be a short how-to. Call it 9.1.3 "Grouping, Blocking, or >> Chunking Sequences and Iterables". The synonyms will help external >> searching. A toc would let people who have found this doc know to look for >> this at the bottom. > > If it really is such an important use case for so many people, I agree that > it's worth special casing it in the docs. It's not a trivial algorithmic > step from a sequential iterable to a grouped iterable. I'm not too keen on adding a section like this to the itertools docs. Instead, I would be open adding "further reading" section with external links to interesting iterator writeups in blogs, cookbooks, stack overflow answers, wikis, etc. If one of you wants to craft an elegant blog post on "Grouping, Blocking, or Chunking Sequences and Iterables", I would be happy to link to it. Raymond ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] cpython: Add syntax highlighter tool
On 01.07.2012 01:58, raymond.hettinger wrote: http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/da4dd603030b changeset: 77899:da4dd603030b user:Raymond Hettinger date:Sat Jun 30 16:58:06 2012 -0700 summary: Add syntax highlighter tool files: Tools/scripts/pycolorize.py | 109 1 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) Uh, this looks quite a lot like a new feature... Since it's in Tools, I'm not going to veto it, just as with the improvements to the gdb helper, but it would have been nice to at least *ask*... Georg ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] cross-compiling patches
On 30.06.2012 23:17, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Hello, > > I think these patches are premature (they break compilation on OS X, > and they break ctypes configure on my Linux box). that was unrelated. fixed last night. > Furthermore, they > were committed post-beta, which means they should probably have waited > for after the 3.3 release. So I propose for these commits to be > reverted. somebody (?) asked on irc that either Martin or I should update the internal copies, and someone suggested to do the same with the expat sources. And I asked our release manager if he was ok with this post beta change. > (to be clear, I'm talking about all configure / Makefile / setup.py / > libffi changes since and including > http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/e6e99d449bdc876fa57111e7e534c44ecbc3bcbd > ) the first cross-build fixes went in in April, please consider these fixes for the then incomplete cros-build fixes. The build issues you did see last night, were fixed for the OS X build, and I reverted the update for the compiler search paths for the native build. So please lets keep this cross-build support for 3.3. It's working, tested with a arm-linux-gnueabi build on x86_64-linux-gnu. Matthias ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] cross-compiling patches
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > the first cross-build fixes went in in April, please consider these fixes for > the then incomplete cros-build fixes. The build issues you did see last night, > were fixed for the OS X build, and I reverted the update for the compiler > search > paths for the native build. So please lets keep this cross-build support for > 3.3. It's working, tested with a arm-linux-gnueabi build on x86_64-linux-gnu. Indeed, especially with the variety of ARM mini-boards coming onto the market at the moment. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] cross-compiling patches
On 01.07.2012 10:22, Matthias Klose wrote: On 30.06.2012 23:17, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Hello, I think these patches are premature (they break compilation on OS X, and they break ctypes configure on my Linux box). that was unrelated. fixed last night. It's also something the buildbots can catch easily. Furthermore, they were committed post-beta, which means they should probably have waited for after the 3.3 release. So I propose for these commits to be reverted. somebody (?) asked on irc that either Martin or I should update the internal copies, and someone suggested to do the same with the expat sources. And I asked our release manager if he was ok with this post beta change. (to be clear, I'm talking about all configure / Makefile / setup.py / libffi changes since and including http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/e6e99d449bdc876fa57111e7e534c44ecbc3bcbd ) the first cross-build fixes went in in April, please consider these fixes for the then incomplete cros-build fixes. The build issues you did see last night, were fixed for the OS X build, and I reverted the update for the compiler search paths for the native build. So please lets keep this cross-build support for 3.3. It's working, tested with a arm-linux-gnueabi build on x86_64-linux-gnu. FWIW, I agree that build fixes for platforms we already support are not a new feature. I am not happy about the amount of changes, and I hope that no such big changes will come until final now... Georg ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] cross-compiling patches
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 11:37:50 +0200 Georg Brandl wrote: > > > > the first cross-build fixes went in in April, please consider these fixes > > for > > the then incomplete cros-build fixes. The build issues you did see last > > night, > > were fixed for the OS X build, and I reverted the update for the compiler > > search > > paths for the native build. So please lets keep this cross-build support for > > 3.3. It's working, tested with a arm-linux-gnueabi build on > > x86_64-linux-gnu. > > FWIW, I agree that build fixes for platforms we already support are not a new > feature. I am not happy about the amount of changes, and I hope that no such > big changes will come until final now... I don't think we have ever supported cross-compiling officially (which is different from supporting a given platform, e.g. ARM). But fair enough. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)
Hi Raymond, Raymond Hettinger, 01.07.2012 09:07: > On Jun 30, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >>> Another addition could be a new subsection on grouping (chunking) that >>> would discuss post-processing of grouper (as discussed above), as well as >>> other recipes, including ones specific to strings and sequences. It would >>> essentially be a short how-to. Call it 9.1.3 "Grouping, Blocking, or >>> Chunking Sequences and Iterables". The synonyms will help external >>> searching. A toc would let people who have found this doc know to look for >>> this at the bottom. >> >> If it really is such an important use case for so many people, I agree that >> it's worth special casing it in the docs. It's not a trivial algorithmic >> step from a sequential iterable to a grouped iterable. > > I'm not too keen on adding a section like this to the itertools docs. I've only just seen that the recipes section is part of the same page since the 2.6 documentation was sphinxified. I had remembered it being on a separate page before. That resolves most of my original concerns. Sorry, should have looked earlier. To address the main problem of users not finding what they need, what about simply extending the docstring of the grouper() function with a sentence like this: "This functionality is also called 'chunking' or 'blocking' and can be used for load distribution and sharding." That would make it easy for users to find what they are looking for when they search the page for "chunk". I find that a much more common and less ambiguous name than "grouping", which reminds me more of "group by". It might be a good idea in general to add a short comment on a use case to each recipe where it's not immediately obvious or where there is a use case with a well-known name, simply to aid in text searches over the page. > Instead, I would be open adding "further reading" section with external links > to interesting iterator writeups in blogs, cookbooks, stack overflow answers, > wikis, etc. > > If one of you wants to craft an elegant blog post on "Grouping, Blocking, or > Chunking Sequences and Iterables", I would be happy to link to it. That could be done in addition, but it bares the risk of bit rotting the documentation by links dying, blogs moving or texts changing. Stefan ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Announcing the python-static-type-checking google group
Hey Paul, This list is going to be high volume super focused and run by Edward; so far he's mostly been thinking out loud. I don't think that Edward would be comfortable doing that quite in the same way on th existing compiler-list. But by all means sign up for his list! --Guido On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Paul Boddie wrote: > Edward K. Ream wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> GvR has asked me to announce the python-static-type-checking google >> group http://groups.google.com/group/python-static-type-checking to >> python-dev. >> >> Consider it announced. Anyone from python-dev who likes may become a >> member. > > Is there any reason why the compiler-sig mailing list wasn't chosen as a venue > for such discussions? I know it has "compiler" in the title, but the mandate > overlaps significantly with what you intend to discuss. > > It's obviously your choice where you host discussions and who you invite, and > I know that the special interest group mailing lists aren't exactly well > advertised these days, what with the lack of agility around updating the Web > content that advertises such things (or the lack of visibility of the Wiki > content), but I feel that you might have a more productive discussion if you > don't insist on Google Groups membership and also allow a wider selection of > participants. > > Please consider this as friendly advice: I too would like to see progress in > the area concerned. > > Paul > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Announcing the python-static-type-checking google group
Paul Boddie, 01.07.2012 02:22: > Is there any reason why the compiler-sig mailing list wasn't chosen as a > venue Even I didn't know that this list even existed. And looking at the archives now, it's hard to see any relevant discussion in all the spam it received until it apparently died away in (almost) silence a couple of years ago. > It's obviously your choice where you host discussions and who you invite, and > I know that the special interest group mailing lists aren't exactly well > advertised these days True, but many (most?) of them are simply not very well frequented, which reduces the interest in joining them even further. Both SIG mailing lists that I read only receive a mail every so many months, often enough without any reply. And almost all of these mails deal with questions that would better be discussed on python-list to leverage the substantially higher number of eyeballs there. I think that's the basic problem: as long as more experts are lurking on python-list than on the dedicated SIG-ML, it's better not to use the SIG-ML for discussions but to go to python-list (or maybe python-ideas or python-dev) straight away. Stefan ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Announcing the python-static-type-checking google group
Stefan Behnel wrote: > Paul Boddie, 01.07.2012 02:22: > > Is there any reason why the compiler-sig mailing list wasn't chosen as a > > venue > > Even I didn't know that this list even existed. And looking at the archives > now, it's hard to see any relevant discussion in all the spam it received > until it apparently died away in (almost) silence a couple of years ago. Yes, although the mailing lists for special interest groups are advertised on python.org, there is no longer the focus on steering discussion to those lists. And I see that the compiler SIG is "retired", as is the related types SIG: http://www.python.org/community/sigs/retired/ I seem to remember various procedures about SIGs and their retirement, but I don't really recall much discussion of such things recently. Still, the compiler SIG matches the scope of the Google group pretty well: http://www.python.org/community/sigs/retired/compiler-sig/ There's even a link to discussion of some tools you may be familiar with. > > It's obviously your choice where you host discussions and who you invite, > > and I know that the special interest group mailing lists aren't exactly > > well advertised these days > > True, but many (most?) of them are simply not very well frequented, which > reduces the interest in joining them even further. Both SIG mailing lists > that I read only receive a mail every so many months, often enough without > any reply. And almost all of these mails deal with questions that would > better be discussed on python-list to leverage the substantially higher > number of eyeballs there. Special interest group lists were always meant to be used as focused channels of communication where people are actively trying to get stuff done. The unfortunate thing is that they aren't as well known as they were. Another unfortunate thing is that getting stuff done of mutual benefit is frequently something that takes second place to whatever other motivations and goals people have, for whatever reason, good or bad. Thus, traffic drops away as people either do other things entirely or instead promote any related work in other channels instead. > I think that's the basic problem: as long as more experts are lurking on > python-list than on the dedicated SIG-ML, it's better not to use the SIG-ML > for discussions but to go to python-list (or maybe python-ideas or > python-dev) straight away. I think we really have to sort out what python-dev is for, because currently there's a tendency to target the list when any kind of "expert" discussion is required, but there are a number of people who would rather see only CPython-related discussion here. Another matter is that static analysis of Python is a topic that frequently hits the end of the road when one cannot, by definition, analyze Python in its most dynamic form, and when people refuse to accept that such analysis has anything to do with Python in its most pure, undiluted (and most contrived) form. But as I wrote, I still intend to follow the newly created group and see what people have to say. Paul ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] hg.python.org migrated
Hello, hg.python.org has just been migrated to a new (virtual) machine hosted by OSU OSL (*). Until the domain name fully propagates, you won't be able to push or pull from the repositories using the ssh protocol. If you notice other issues, don't hesitate to mention them. (*) http://osuosl.org/ Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
