Re: Proposal: Disconnect comp.lang.python from python-list
On 5/5/21 9:31 PM, Paul Bryan wrote: Given the ease of spoofing sender addresses, and its propensity for use in anonymous spamming and trolling (thanks python-list-owner for staying on top of that!), I propose to disconnect comp.lang.python from the python-list mailing list. Both would then operate independently. Paul No way, I have been using comp.lang.python for years, my spam filter works ok btw. Regards -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Standarize TOML?
During the Steering Committee presentation at PyCon, it was mentioned that no one has formally proposed TOML be added to the standard library (emphasis on formal). THe joke went forth that there would be a flood of proposals to that end. So, just to kick this off while the thought is still fresh in a bunch of people's minds: **should we add a TOML parser to the standard library**? The main reason this matters is to help encourage adoption of the now PEP-standardized pyproject.toml. A few projects have cited the lack of a standardized TOML implementation in the standard library as a reason not to adopt pyproject.toml...and the topic thus became weirdly political. I understand that Brett Cannon intends to bring this up at the next language summit, but, ah, might as well put the community two-cents in now, hey? I, for one, feel like this is obvious. -- Jason C. McDonald (CodeMouse92) Author | Speaker | Hacker | Time Lord -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Standarize TOML?
On 2021-05-15, Jason C. McDonald wrote: > During the Steering Committee presentation at PyCon, it was mentioned > that no one has formally proposed TOML be added to the standard library > (emphasis on formal). THe joke went forth that there would be a flood > of proposals to that end. > > So, just to kick this off while the thought is still fresh in a bunch of > people's minds: **should we add a TOML parser to the standard library**? > > The main reason this matters is to help encourage adoption of the now > PEP-standardized pyproject.toml. A few projects have cited the lack of > a standardized TOML implementation in the standard library as a reason > not to adopt pyproject.toml...and the topic thus became weirdly > political. > > I understand that Brett Cannon intends to bring this up at the next > language summit, but, ah, might as well put the community two-cents in > now, hey? > > I, for one, feel like this is obvious. How about replacing pyproject.toml with pyproject.json, problem solved. It's fairly hilarious that PEP 518 even provides a JSON schema specifying the file format, but then doesn't use JSON and instead selects a file format that doesn't even have a built-in Python parser. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
