[Python-Dev] Windows buildbots are red: test_idlelib

[Victor Stinner]

Hi,

Unit tests are failing on Windows because of this issue:
http://bugs.python.org/issue21059

It looks like a regression in test_idlelib introduced with this issue:
http://bugs.python.org/issue15968

Zachary Ware wrote a fix:
http://bugs.python.org/issue20035

Can someone please review Zachary's patch? If not, I suggest to revert
changes of issue #15968 to have working Windows buildbots.

Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-Dev Digest, Vol 129, Issue 6

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Kells Pablo  wrote:
> HELLO...
>
> !thank you for all the cooperation and emails send. i would like that you
> now stop sending them..
>
> thank you in advance
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:22 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to
>> python-dev@python.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> python-dev-requ...@python.org
>>
>

If you'd have a look at the email you just quoted (in its entirety)
back to the list, you would see how to unsubscribe. We here on the
list are unable to unsubscribe you, and the software that runs the
list doesn't listen to these sorts of posts.

ChrisA
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:

> > I believe this leaves only one open question, which is where exactly
> > to stick the new matmul slots into PyTypeObject. This is the kind of
> > fiddly detail that can easily be settled later if the PEP is accepted,
> > though.
>
> I don't see what it shouldn't be in PyNumberMethods. Surely, we're not
> going to get a flood of requests for more matrix operators, are we? :)


We may want to introduce say  PyArrayMethods even if we don't introduce more
array operators.  We can populate that struct with array-specific
alternatives for
PySequence/PyMappingMethods and eliminate the need for dynamically created
array types to allocate those.

There is also a way to introduce PyArrayMethods at no cost to current
implementation:
we can rename tp_reserved (formerly known as tp_compare) to tp_as_array.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Benjamin Peterson]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 9:52, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
> 
> > > I believe this leaves only one open question, which is where exactly
> > > to stick the new matmul slots into PyTypeObject. This is the kind of
> > > fiddly detail that can easily be settled later if the PEP is accepted,
> > > though.
> >
> > I don't see what it shouldn't be in PyNumberMethods. Surely, we're not
> > going to get a flood of requests for more matrix operators, are we? :)
> 
> 
> We may want to introduce say  PyArrayMethods even if we don't introduce
> more
> array operators.  We can populate that struct with array-specific
> alternatives for
> PySequence/PyMappingMethods and eliminate the need for dynamically
> created
> array types to allocate those.

Why would we want to do that?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython (3.4): asyncio: Document Task.cancel() properly.

[Terry Reedy]

On 4/7/2014 5:22 AM, victor.stinner wrote:


  def cancel(self):
+"""Request that a task to cancel itself.


For proper English, this should be one of these:
"Request that a task cancel itself."
"Request a task to cancel itself."

I think the first is slightly better.

TJR

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[francis]

>
> So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback
welcome:
>   http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
>

Hi,
just curiosity: why is the second parameter 'o2' in:

PyObject* PyObject_MatrixMultiply(PyObject *o1, PyObject o2)

not a pointer to PyObject?

Thanks in advance!

francis


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Robert Kern]

On 2014-04-07 19:54, francis wrote:




So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback

welcome:

   http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/



Hi,
just curiosity: why is the second parameter 'o2' in:

PyObject* PyObject_MatrixMultiply(PyObject *o1, PyObject o2)

not a pointer to PyObject?


Typo, I'm fairly certain.

--
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
 that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
 an underlying truth."
  -- Umberto Eco

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM, francis  wrote:
>
>>
>> So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback
> welcome:
>>   http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
>>
>
> Hi,
> just curiosity: why is the second parameter 'o2' in:
>
> PyObject* PyObject_MatrixMultiply(PyObject *o1, PyObject o2)
>
> not a pointer to PyObject?

Because typo. Thanks for the catch :-)

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith
Postdoctoral researcher - Informatics - University of Edinburgh
http://vorpus.org
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Victor Stinner]

Hi,

2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith :
> So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome:
>   http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/

I'm not convinced yet that there is enough usage of Python in
mathematical world to modify the Python language to add a new
operator. Python is used for a lot of different use cases, in a lot of
domains. I'm not sure that it's a good thing to modify the *language*
for a specific domain. But you can do a lot without modify the
language :-)

I'm a little bit surprised by the "Count of Python source files on
Github matching given search terms" table, it's very different from
these statistics:
http://python3wos.appspot.com/

Where are six, pytz,  mock, webob, etc. in your table? (all modules
which come before "numpy" in the "Python 3 Wall of Superpowers")

> But isn't it weird to add an operator with no stdlib uses?

I agree that it sounds weird :-) Maybe we should start by putting some
parts of numpy/scipy/sage/pylab/panda into the stdlib? (I'm not sure
that the new statistics module is such beginning.)

--

It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.
For example, on Linux you can write × using "Compose x x" if you
configured the Compose key. Or sometimes, you can replace "@" with "×"
using your favorite text editor (copy-paste from another script, from
a webpage, or something else).

You may mention Perl 6 meta operators, but it's not directly related:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perl_6_Programming/Meta_Operators

Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Antoine Pitrou]

Le 07/04/2014 22:38, Victor Stinner a écrit :


It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.


Well, IMHO Python code should be writable without having to "configure 
your keyboard".


Regards

Antoine.


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Victor Stinner]

2014-04-07 22:46 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
> Le 07/04/2014 22:38, Victor Stinner a écrit :
>> It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
>> readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.
>
> Well, IMHO Python code should be writable without having to "configure your
> keyboard".

I proposed to support both syntaxes, so you can write "@" if you are
unable to write ×.

It's not because I'm unable to write chinese that Python should no
allow chinese characters in Python identifiers :-)

Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:

> I proposed to support both syntaxes, so you can write "@" if you are
> unable to write ×.
>

It won't be obvious for the readers of the code whether × stands for @ or
for *. Both * and @ are ASCII approximations to proper mathematical
typesetting.   It may be added to the PEP that × is almost never used for
dot or scalar product.  In vector context it is commonly used for vector
product a.k.a. cross product.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Victor Stinner  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith :
>> So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome:
>>   http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
>
> I'm not convinced yet that there is enough usage of Python in
> mathematical world to modify the Python language to add a new
> operator. Python is used for a lot of different use cases, in a lot of
> domains. I'm not sure that it's a good thing to modify the *language*
> for a specific domain. But you can do a lot without modify the
> language :-)
>
> I'm a little bit surprised by the "Count of Python source files on
> Github matching given search terms" table, it's very different from
> these statistics:
> http://python3wos.appspot.com/
>
> Where are six, pytz,  mock, webob, etc. in your table? (all modules
> which come before "numpy" in the "Python 3 Wall of Superpowers")

They'd be down in bottom half, with ~30-50k total. (You can check
easily by running the search yourself :-).)

PyPI downloads are not a great proxy for usage, for a number of
reasons. The way to get really big on PyPI downloads is to be depended
on by a lot of projects get deployed often :-). This is very different
from being used directly in lots of different files. Consider also
that probably a majority of numpy users get numpy (and python, etc.)
by using one of the many specialized scientific python distributions
that different companies and people maintain:
  http://www.scipy.org/install.html#scientific-python-distributions
and also that using pip to install scientific packages basically never
works, so no-one uses the pip -r requirements.txt system for
deployment...

>> But isn't it weird to add an operator with no stdlib uses?
>
> I agree that it sounds weird :-) Maybe we should start by putting some
> parts of numpy/scipy/sage/pylab/panda into the stdlib? (I'm not sure
> that the new statistics module is such beginning.)

There are many reasons why this is not a great idea in the short term
-- including the problem mentioned a few sentences after the one you
quoted, which is that @ seems to be a precondition to getting
consensus on a numeric array duck type, which in turn would be a
precondition to putting an array type into the stdlib ;-). So while
putting numpy into the stdlib is probably a bad idea regardless, even
if we wanted to do it there's a chicken-and-egg problem.

> --
>
> It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
> readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.
> For example, on Linux you can write × using "Compose x x" if you
> configured the Compose key. Or sometimes, you can replace "@" with "×"
> using your favorite text editor (copy-paste from another script, from
> a webpage, or something else).

Sounds like a pretty major violation of TOOWTDI...

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith
Postdoctoral researcher - Informatics - University of Edinburgh
http://vorpus.org
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Benjamin Peterson 
wrote:
>
> > We can populate that struct with array-specific alternatives for
> > PySequence/PyMappingMethods and eliminate the need for dynamically
> > created array types to allocate those.
>
> Why would we want to do that?

I assume "that" means "create array types dynamically."  There are many
reasons to do that in modern array implementations.  See for example
ctypes.  A more practical reason however is that I
believe PySequence/PyMappingMethods are cloned whenever a subclass of a
sequence/mapping type is created.  For better or worse, subclassing of
numpy arrays is a popular sport these days.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Benjamin Peterson]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:22, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Benjamin Peterson 
> wrote:
> >
> > > We can populate that struct with array-specific alternatives for
> > > PySequence/PyMappingMethods and eliminate the need for dynamically
> > > created array types to allocate those.
> >
> > Why would we want to do that?
> 
> I assume "that" means "create array types dynamically."  There are many
> reasons to do that in modern array implementations.  See for example
> ctypes.  A more practical reason however is that I
> believe PySequence/PyMappingMethods are cloned whenever a subclass of a
> sequence/mapping type is created.  For better or worse, subclassing of
> numpy arrays is a popular sport these days.

I can understand why creating new array types is good fun, but how is
creating a new struct helpful?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:

> I can understand why creating new array types is good fun, but how is
> creating a new struct helpful?
>

We can start by reviewing the reasons for having separate
PyNumber/PySequence/PyMappingMethods
structures.  I believe that one of the reasons is that many types need to
allocate only one of the three.  Numpy arrays, IIRC, allocate all three.  A
dedicated PyArrayMethods struct can replace some if not all of these
allocations.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Benjamin Peterson]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:33, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
> 
> > I can understand why creating new array types is good fun, but how is
> > creating a new struct helpful?
> >
> 
> We can start by reviewing the reasons for having separate
> PyNumber/PySequence/PyMappingMethods
> structures.  I believe that one of the reasons is that many types need to
> allocate only one of the three.  Numpy arrays, IIRC, allocate all three. 
> A
> dedicated PyArrayMethods struct can replace some if not all of these
> allocations.

I can't say it seems like a terrible important thing to optimize to me.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Ethan Furman]

On 04/07/2014 01:38 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:


I'm not sure that it's a good thing to modify the *language*
for a specific domain. But you can do a lot without modify the
language :-)


That ship has already sailed.  Features have already been added at the behest 
of the numerical community.

--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:

> no-one uses the pip -r requirements.txt system for
> deployment...
>

I must be among "no-one" then. :-) Yet my systems don't leave much of a
footprint on PyPI because we use PIP_DOWNLOAD_CACHE and internal PyPI
mirrors.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:

> > It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
> > readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.
> > For example, on Linux you can write × using "Compose x x" if you
> > configured the Compose key. Or sometimes, you can replace "@" with "×"
> > using your favorite text editor (copy-paste from another script, from
> > a webpage, or something else).
>
> Sounds like a pretty major violation of TOOWTDI...


Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x.  I
don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Larry Hastings]

On 04/07/2014 02:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith > wrote:


> It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
> readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.
> For example, on Linux you can write × using "Compose x x" if you
> configured the Compose key. Or sometimes, you can replace "@"
with "×"
> using your favorite text editor (copy-paste from another script,
from
> a webpage, or something else).

Sounds like a pretty major violation of TOOWTDI...


Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x. 
 I don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.


Right, and <> was removed because TOOWTDI.  I am -1**3001 on adding 
redundant non-ASCII operators to the language.  Python != APL.



/arry
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Barry Warsaw]

On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:

>Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x.  I
>don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.

PEP 401 to the rescue:

% python3
Python 3.4.0 (default, Mar 22 2014, 22:51:25) 
[GCC 4.8.2] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> from __future__ import barry_as_FLUFL
>>> 'flufl' <> 'bdfl'
True
>>> 'flufl' != 'bdfl'
  File "", line 1
'flufl' != 'bdfl'
 ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax


(And no, I am not recommending you actually *use* that in live code. :)

flufl-ly y'rs,
-Barry
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Benjamin Peterson]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> 
> >Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x.  I
> >don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
> 
> PEP 401 to the rescue:

It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
now, we should remove it.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Larry Hastings  wrote:

> I am -1**3001 on adding redundant non-ASCII operators to the language.


>>> -1**3001
-1

:-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Larry Hastings]

On 04/07/2014 03:16 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Larry Hastings > wrote:


I am -1**3001 on adding redundant non-ASCII operators to the language.


>>> -1**3001
-1

:-)


http://www.quickmeme.com/img/9c/9cb11f91cfda4d161c44e5b2c18c242c60411ac42dc8debc58b2e6a4c17efb0c.jpg


//arry/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Guido van Rossum]

I'm now accepting the PEP, so you all can stop joking around.


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Larry Hastings  wrote:

>
> On 04/07/2014 03:16 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Larry Hastings  wrote:
>
>> I am -1**3001 on adding redundant non-ASCII operators to the language.
>
>
> >>> -1**3001
> -1
>
>  :-)
>
>
>
> http://www.quickmeme.com/img/9c/9cb11f91cfda4d161c44e5b2c18c242c60411ac42dc8debc58b2e6a4c17efb0c.jpg
>
>
> */arry*
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
>
>


-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Greg Ewing]

Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
We can start by reviewing the reasons for having separate 
PyNumber/PySequence/PyMappingMethods structures.  I believe that one of 
the reasons is that many types need to allocate only one of the three.


That much is probably true.

 Numpy arrays, IIRC, allocate all three.  A dedicated PyArrayMethods 
struct can replace some if not all of these allocations.


I don't see how. NumPy arrays allocate all three because
they override just about every method in existence. Adding
another struct isn't going to eliminate the need for the
existing ones.

--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> > 
> > >Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x.  I
> > >don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
> > 
> > PEP 401 to the rescue:
> 
> It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
> now, we should remove it.

-1 on removal.

It makes a nice Easter Egg, especially now that "import this" has become 
less of an Easter Egg and more of a standard Python module :-)



-- 
Steven
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Benjamin Peterson]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > > On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x.  I
> > > >don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
> > > 
> > > PEP 401 to the rescue:
> > 
> > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
> > now, we should remove it.
> 
> -1 on removal.

You can't be serious.

> 
> It makes a nice Easter Egg, especially now that "import this" has become 
> less of an Easter Egg and more of a standard Python module :-)

It's a terrible Easter Egg because it's basically a CPython core
developer in-joke.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Barry Warsaw]

On Apr 07, 2014, at 06:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:

>> > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
>> > now, we should remove it.
>> 
>> -1 on removal.
>
>You can't be serious.

Hey man, don't break all my code!  

-Barry
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Python-Dev] stupid jokes (was PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication)

[Benjamin Peterson]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:11, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 07, 2014, at 06:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 
> >> > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
> >> > now, we should remove it.
> >> 
> >> -1 on removal.
> >
> >You can't be serious.
> 
> Hey man, don't break all my code!  

Surely, you mean <>wink<>?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] stupid jokes (was PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication)

[Barry Warsaw]

On Apr 07, 2014, at 06:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:

>On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:11, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Apr 07, 2014, at 06:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 
>> >> > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
>> >> > now, we should remove it.
>> >> 
>> >> -1 on removal.
>> >
>> >You can't be serious.
>> 
>> Hey man, don't break all my code!  
>
>Surely, you mean <>wink<>?

Now you get it! :)

-Barry


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Guido van Rossum]

So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-)


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > > > On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in
> 3.x.  I
> > > > >don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
> > > >
> > > > PEP 401 to the rescue:
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
> > > now, we should remove it.
> >
> > -1 on removal.
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> >
> > It makes a nice Easter Egg, especially now that "import this" has become
> > less of an Easter Egg and more of a standard Python module :-)
>
> It's a terrible Easter Egg because it's basically a CPython core
> developer in-joke.
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
>



-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[MRAB]

On 2014-04-08 02:45, Guido van Rossum wrote:

So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-)


Next thing you know, he'll be threatening people with The Comfy Chair!


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson mailto:benja...@python.org>> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
 > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
 > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
 > > > On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
 > > >
 > > > >Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <>
in 3.x.  I
 > > > >don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
 > > >
 > > > PEP 401 to the rescue:
 > >
 > > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many
years old
 > > now, we should remove it.
 >
 > -1 on removal.

You can't be serious.

 >
 > It makes a nice Easter Egg, especially now that "import this" has
become
 > less of an Easter Egg and more of a standard Python module :-)

It's a terrible Easter Egg because it's basically a CPython core
developer in-joke.


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 06:06:17PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > > > On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x.  I
> > > > >don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
> > > > 
> > > > PEP 401 to the rescue:
> > > 
> > > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
> > > now, we should remove it.
> > 
> > -1 on removal.
> 
> You can't be serious.

I can't? Would it help if I sprinkle smileys and *winks* throughout my 
post?


> > It makes a nice Easter Egg, especially now that "import this" has become 
> > less of an Easter Egg and more of a standard Python module :-)
> 
> It's a terrible Easter Egg because it's basically a CPython core
> developer in-joke.

Are we really going to start arguing about humour and what makes a good 
easter egg? I suppose next you're going to tell me that Monty Python 
isn't very funny.

It is precisely because it is a subtle in-joke that makes it a good 
easter egg. It's not difficult to find, just import __future__ as a 
regular module and call dir(__future__), so the fun is not in 
discovering the egg, but in working out what it does and what it means.

Many, many more people take part in the CPython core developer culture 
than just the core developers themselves. Look at the readership of this 
mailing list, which is open to the public and has regular posters who 
aren't core developers. In-jokes like Guido as the BDFL and Tim Peter's 
"adverb-phrase-ly 'yrs" signatures have become widely known throughout 
the Python community. Barry as FLUFL is less well known, but still 
accessible to anyone willing to put the effort in. These days, when 
almost any in-joke is only a quick google search away from being 
explained, that effort is trivial.

So yes, I am serious.


-- 
Steven
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
>> You can't be serious.
>
> I can't? Would it help if I sprinkle smileys and *winks* throughout my
> post?

You can be serious, Steven, but it's more likely to happen if you
*don't* use smileys...

*not very serious*

ChrisA
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

[Nick Coghlan]

On 7 Apr 2014 21:58, "MRAB"  wrote:
>
> On 2014-04-08 02:45, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-)
>>
> Next thing you know, he'll be threatening people with The Comfy Chair!

You may want to take a look at the packaging metadata 2.0 spec ;)

I was also going to add a +1 for the actual topic of this thread, but
Guido's acceptance of the PEP rendered that point rather moot :)

Cheers,
Nick.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com