On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/7/2010 5:29 AM, geremy condra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchu
I port
2010/7/8 Michele Simionato :
> On Jul 7, 10:55 pm, Carl Banks wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire wrote:
>> > I just
>> > couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
>> > upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
>> > 2-3 chasm, as this would l
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:10:57 -0700, Brendan Abel wrote:
> The entire fact that 3.x was *designed* to be incompatible should tell
> you that supporting 2.x and 3.x with a single code base is a bad idea,
> except for the very smallest of projects.
I don't see that follows at all. If the incompatibi
> I just
> couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
> upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
> 2-3 chasm, as this would leave behind my faithful pre-2.6 users.
Not sure whom you had been talking to. But I would have tried to explain
that you don
> Python 3.x will continue to change. The incompatibilities between 3.x
> and 2.x will only become more numerous. If your goal is to support
> 2.x, and 3.x, you'd be best supporting them separately.
I don't think that's a particularly good approach. Having a single code
base for both likely redu
On Jul 7, 10:55 pm, Carl Banks wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire wrote:
> > I just
> > couldn't get through on the python-dev list that I couldn't just
> > upgrade my code to 2.6 and then use 2to3 to keep in step across the
> > 2-3 chasm, as this would leave behind my faithful pre-2.6 user
Am 07.07.2010 23:10, schrieb Brendan Abel:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As suc
Dear Paul McGuire:
Thank you very much for these notes!
See also a few other notes:
Michael Foord:
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/weblog/arch_d7_2010_03_20.shtml#e1167
Ned Batchelder:
http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200910/running_the_same_code_on_python_2x_and_3x.html
I was wondering if it
On 7/7/2010 4:31 AM, Paul McGuire wrote:
[snip interesting report on how Paul suppost pyparsing for 2.3 to 3.1]
Thank you for this.
Do you think such cross-version support would have been easier or harder
if the major changes and deletions in 3.0 has been spread over several
versions, such as
On 7/7/2010 5:29 AM, geremy condra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchu
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Carl Banks wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau wrote:> On Tue, Jul
>> 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>>
>> > One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
>> > works on 2.x
On Jul 7, 2:10 pm, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> > > > works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> > > > versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
> > > > si
On Jul 5, 1:34 am, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle wrote:
>
> > Exactly.
>
> > The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
> > is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
> > identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
> > Py
geremy condra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB wrote:
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions b
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB wrote:
>> Brendan Abel wrote:
>> One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
>> works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
>> version
On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB wrote:
> Brendan Abel wrote:
> One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
> significant us
Brendan Abel wrote:
One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3
warni
> > > One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> > > works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> > > versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
> > > significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3
> >
On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Paul McGuire wrote:
> On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau wrote:> On Tue, Jul
> 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>
> > One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> > works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> > ve
In article <5325a$4c349b5b$4275d90a$27...@fuse.net>,
Kevin Walzer wrote:
> That's decision for each business to make. My guess is that many
> businesses won't upgrade for some time, until the major
> libraries/modules support Python 3. I don't plan to move to Python 3 for
> at least a couple
On 7/2/10 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
That's the real issue, not parentheses on the "print" statement.
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no
"killer app" for it. End of life for Python 2.x is many years aw
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
>
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even able to keep a
single
On Jul 6, 3:30 am, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>
> One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most p
On Jul 2, 4:07 pm, John Nagle wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
> > I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
> > python 3 bring to people. The" what's new in python 3 page" gives
> > the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
> > poor argument to pu
On Jul 6, 12:37 am, Terry Reedy wrote:
> In his post on this thread, Martin Loewis volunteered to list what he
> knows from psycopg2 if someone else will edit.
Now we are getting somewhere! This is the community spirit i want to
see. You don't have to give much people, every little bit counts. B
On 07/06/2010 07:17 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> docs.python.org / dev/3.0/howto/cporting.html
http://docs.python.org/py3k/howto/cporting.html
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 7/6/2010 11:19 AM, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
2010/7/6 David Cournapeau:
Or is there no change at the C level? That would make things easy.
There are quite a few, but outside of the big pain point of
strings/byte/unicode which is present at python level as well, a lot
of the issues are not so
2010/7/6 David Cournapeau :
>> Or is there no change at the C level? That would make things easy.
>
> There are quite a few, but outside of the big pain point of
> strings/byte/unicode which is present at python level as well, a lot
> of the issues are not so big (and even simpler to deal with). F
On Jul 5, 2:56 am, John Nagle wrote:
> The Twisted team has a list of what they need:
>
> "http://stackoverflow.com/questions/172306/how-are-you-planning-on-han...";
Here's what I got from a quick google review of the below four
projects and python 3.
> * Zope Interface
Here's a blog fro
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:30:34 +0800
David Cournapeau wrote:
> One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
Yes, PyGreSQL officially suppo
Steven D'Aprano, 05.07.2010 08:31:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
Using Python 2.x for new
projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.
That's pure FUD.
Python 2.7 will be
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:30 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
>> Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
>> or something else that they need?
>
> How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyG
On 7/5/2010 9:00 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
I ported two pure C extensions from 2 to 3 and was even able to keep a
single C codebase. I'd be willing to contribute my experiences to a
document
s
On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk
wrote:
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ab
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
>> Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
>>> Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
>>> or something else that they n
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyGreSQL and would
On 7/5/2010 12:35 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
On 7/5/10 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
* PyCrypto
* PyOpenSSL
These, and Mark Pilgrim's feedparser, need to be 3.x compatible before I
can think about Python 3.x.
There's been an attempt to port "feedparser" to 3.0, but
that needed a port of Beaut
Am 05.07.2010 22:30, schrieb D'Arcy J.M. Cain:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
>> Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
>> or something else that they need?
>
> How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyGreSQL and
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Good start. Now what is blocking those four?
> Lack of developer interest/time/ability?
> or something else that they need?
How about a basic how-to document? I maintain PyGreSQL and would like
to move it to 3.x right now but I don't even k
On 7/5/10 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
* PyCrypto
* PyOpenSSL
These, and Mark Pilgrim's feedparser, need to be 3.x compatible before I
can think about Python 3.x.
--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 7/5/2010 6:04 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
[snip]
I think numpy will work for 3.1 as well
If numpy were released today for 3.1 (or even anytime before 3.2), that
would be great. It would let those waiting for it that it is real and
tha
On 7/5/2010 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
On 7/4/2010 10:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I you have any other ideas about other top blockers, please share them.
The Twisted team has a list of what they need:
"http://stackoverflow.com/questions/172306/how-are-you-planning-on-handling-the-migration-to
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
>
>> The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
>> is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
>> identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
>> Python 3 by majo
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:59:03 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
> Denying that there's a problem does not help.
Nobody is denying that there is a problem, but there are plenty of people
denying that there are any solutions.
The folks doing development of CPython are genuinely interested in
constructive
On 7/4/2010 10:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many use
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:34:04 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
> Using Python 2.x for new
> projects is not advisable (at least many will think so), and using 3.x
> is not possible. What to do? It's not a helpful situation for Python.
That's pure FUD.
Python 2.7 will be supported longer than the normal
On 7/4/2010 7:58 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
Python 3 by major projects with many users.
Let me repeat. Last September, if no
On Jul 4, 8:59 pm, John Nagle wrote:
> That's what happens when you
> mismanage an incompatible transition.
+1
> Python has strong competition. In the last two years,
> Javascript has become much faster, PHP is getting a JIT compiler,
> Lua, as recently mentioned, is getting up there with
On 7/4/2010 5:34 PM, sturlamolden wrote:
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle wrote:
Exactly.
The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part is the
problem right now. A good first step would be to identify the top
5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to Python 3 by major
projects with
On 5 Jul, 01:58, John Nagle wrote:
> Exactly.
>
> The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
> is the problem right now. A good first step would be to
> identify the top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to
> Python 3 by major projects with many users.
The big da
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:58:04 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
> The "incompatible with all extension modules I need" part
> is the problem right now. A good first step would be to identify the
> top 5 or 10 modules that are blocking a move to Python 3 by major
> projects with many users.
Are you vo
On 7/4/2010 1:20 PM, sturlamolden wrote:
On 2 Jul, 21:07, John Nagle wrote:
http://jens.mooseyard.com/2008/12/python-30-whats-the-point/
He is right on. The only thing Python 3k will do for me, is break all
my code and be incompatible with all extension modules I need. "What's
the point?" in
On 2 Jul, 21:07, John Nagle wrote:
> http://jens.mooseyard.com/2008/12/python-30-whats-the-point/
He is right on. The only thing Python 3k will do for me, is break all
my code and be incompatible with all extension modules I need. "What's
the point?" indeed.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
>> I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
>> python 3 bring to people. The" what's new in python 3 page" gives
>> the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
>> poor argument to push people to s
On 7/2/2010 9:10 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two.
Not according to Vex's publishe
On 2 Jul 2010 15:00:17 -0700
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> >5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
>
> webfaction.com has python3.1
So does http://www.Vex.Net/ so there's your two.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.drui
On 7/2/2010 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
That's the real issue, not parentheses on the "print" statement.
Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6.
False. One cannot run code in 2.6 that depends on bugfixes in 3.1. Nor
In article <4c2e79d3$0$1663$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
John Nagle wrote:
>On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote:
>> In article<4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com>, John Nagle wrote:
>>>
>>> 5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
>>
>> webfaction.com has python3.1
>
>Any use
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Steven D'Aprano <
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
>
> > Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster. It
> > doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no "kill
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:07:33 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
> Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster. It
> doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6. There's no "killer app"
> for it. End of life for Python 2.x is many years away; most server Linux
> distros aren't eve
On 7/2/2010 3:00 PM, Aahz wrote:
In article<4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com>, John Nagle wrote:
5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
WebFaction's big thing is that they have a really good system for
installing anything the user want
In article <4c2e38f5.10...@animats.com>, John Nagle wrote:
>
>5. Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
webfaction.com has python3.1
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"If you don't know what your program is supposed to do,
On Jul 2, 12:07 pm, John Nagle wrote:
> This has all been said before.
Yes, we know. And when no one did anything about it the first dozen
times it's been said, it wasn't because we didn't hear it, it was
because we didn't care. We still don't care now, and won't care no
matter how many tim
On 07/02/2010 09:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:
>
>What I'm not seeing is a deployment plan along these lines:
>
>1.Identify key modules which must be converted before Python 3
> can be used in production environments.
That depends VERY strongly on the environment in question.
>
>
David Cournapeau wrote:
I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
python 3 bring to people. The" what's new in python 3 page" gives
the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
poor argument to push people to switch.
That's the real issue, not p
In article ,
geremy condra wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>>
>>> That is precisely how the quick-and-dirty syntax of print statement can
>>> be justified. While debugging, you'll need to be able to quickly
On 30/06/2010 01:23 p.m., Lie Ryan wrote:
On 07/01/10 01:42, Michele Simionato wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for prin
In article
<3f35dcf5-25ff-4aa7-820c-592cbffa4...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
rantingrick wrote:
> On Jun 30, 4:21 pm, geremy condra wrote:
>
> > Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type
> > spaces than parens.
>
> Oh Geremy please. If you're going to whine a
geremy condra writes:
> > Right. I'm much more concerned about the position of my Ctrl key, to
> > avoid hand injury from all the key chording done as a programmer.
>
> Not saying its a cure-all, but I broke my hand pretty badly a few years
> ago and had a lot of luck with a homemade foot switch
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>> > Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> >> I suppose in principle those extra three key presses (shift-9
>> >> shift-0 vs space) could be the straw that breaks the ca
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Steven D'Aprano writes:
> >> I suppose in principle those extra three key presses (shift-9
> >> shift-0 vs space) could be the straw that breaks the camel's back,
> >> but I doubt it.
> >
> > There's also Fitt
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
>> But, honestly, is there anyone here, even the most heavy users of
>> print, who would seriously expect that adding parentheses to print
>> calls will do more than add a tiny fraction to the amount of typing
>> e
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> But, honestly, is there anyone here, even the most heavy users of
> print, who would seriously expect that adding parentheses to print
> calls will do more than add a tiny fraction to the amount of typing
> effort already required to use Python? I suppose in principle th
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:57:58 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
>
Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to
type spaces than parens.
>>>
>>> Yes. And typing "p" is easier than typing "print". Perhaps we should
>
John Nagle wrote:
On 6/27/2010 1:09 PM, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary
apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let
alone need, and new Py3 features.
In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in
On 6/30/10 6:48 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The 10th anniversary of the announcement of PERL 6 is coming
up on July 19th, and it still hasn't displaced PERL 5 as the
"primary" version.
Now, I may be totally off-base, because I do not grok perl and so have
never made much of an effort to follow perl-
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:57:58 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
>>> Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to
>>> type spaces than parens.
>>
>> Yes. And typing "p" is easier than typing "print". Perhaps we should
>> replace all Python built-ins with one letter names so that we c
On 6/27/2010 1:09 PM, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary
apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let
alone need, and new Py3 features.
In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in the future
(surely
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:25 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> On Jun 30, 4:21 pm, geremy condra wrote:
>
>> Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type
>> spaces than parens.
>
> Oh Geremy please. If you're going to whine about something at least
> find something worth whining
On Jun 30, 4:21 pm, geremy condra wrote:
> Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type
> spaces than parens.
Oh Geremy please. If you're going to whine about something at least
find something worth whining about! Yes a few more key strokes are
needed. But print should
On Jun 30, 9:42 am, Michele Simionato
wrote:
> Actually when debugging I use pdb which uses "p" (no parens) for
> printing, so having
> print or print() would not make any difference for me.
Perhaps you don't use CJK strings much?
p u'\u30d1\u30a4\u30c8\u30f3' give quite a different
result than
On 30/06/2010 23:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[snips]
The rule against premature optimization doesn't just apply to *code*.
+1QOTW
Kindest regards.
Mark Lawrence.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:21:32 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>>
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > Pr
On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:52 , Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty)
scripts,
interactive use, and as a debugging aid.
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:21:32 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
> >
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
>
>> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
> producing a print statement.
>>>
>>> (1) The main use-cases for pr
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> > Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
>>> > producing a print statement.
>>
>> (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
>> interactive use, an
On 6/30/10 9:22 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 07/01/10 01:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
On 6/30/10 5:52 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and
On 07/01/10 01:42, Michele Simionato wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
>> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
> Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
> print statement.
>>
>>> (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dir
On 07/01/10 01:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> On 6/30/10 5:52 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
> producing a
> print statement.
>>>
>>> (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dir
On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> >> > Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
> >> > print statement.
>
> > (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
> > interactive use, and as a debu
On 6/30/10 5:52 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
interactive use, and as a debugging aid.
That is pre
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
>> > print statement.
>
> (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
> interactive use, and as a debugging aid.
That is precisely how the quick-and
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:56:37 +, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> Nice. Once 100% of the installed base is at 2.6, I'll finally be able
> to write code that compatible with 3.0.
What's "the installed base"?
Machines you control? Then just install 2.6 on your installed base and be
done with it. Or ev
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article ,
> Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>> Uhmm, just add the parenthesis to your old scripts. You can
>>> do that without breaking on 2.x.
>>
>>Only sort of. But in Python 2.6+, you only need to "from __future__
>>import print_function"
In article ,
Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>
>> Uhmm, just add the parenthesis to your old scripts. You can
>> do that without breaking on 2.x.
>
>Only sort of. But in Python 2.6+, you only need to "from __future__
>import print_function" to make code work in both 2.x and 3.x (at least
>insofar as the
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article ,
> Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>
>>No one said otherwise, or that print was useless and never used in such
>>contexts.
>
> I was responding to the question "Also, do you use print *that*
> much? Really?" The implication being that
> Until such time as 100% of the systems I might ever want to run my progams
> on have python 3 installed, I cannot port my programs over from python 2.
You don't have to port them from python 2, but still could it make easy
to use them with Python 3: just arrange it so that 2to3 will correctly
co
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-06-28, geremy condra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> Stephen Hansen ? wrote:
No one said otherwise, or that print was useless and never used in such
contexts.
>>>
>>
On 6/28/10 3:09 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article,
Stephen Hansen wrote:
Any other use, I basically operate on a file object.
I use file objects all the time. I use print with them.
The 2to3 conversion script takes care of this for you.
[~]$ 2to3 foo.py
RefactoringTool: Skipping impli
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
