On 2014.04.16 03:02, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Hmm, interesting. That's not the case for me:
>
> rosuav@sikorsky:~$ which which
> /usr/bin/which
That's because bash either does not have a builtin which or it is not enabled
by default. I switched to zsh a while ago. I do still, of
course, have a sys
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 02:32:00 -0500, Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.04.15 20:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:32:57 -0500, Andrew Berg wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014.04.15 17:18, Ned Batchelder wrote:
Yeah, that's the wrong way to do it, and they shouldn't have done
that.
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:02:00 PM UTC+5:30, Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.04.15 20:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:32:57 -0500, Andrew Berg wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On 2014.04.15 17:18, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
> >>> Yeah, that's the wrong way to do it, and they shouldn'
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Andrew Berg
wrote:
>> If you really meant that, you would have typed "/usr/bin/which2.16
>> python" (or whatever the location and version of which on your system).
> Are you sure about that?
> # which which
> which: shell built-in command
> Unless I'm forgetting so
On 2014.04.15 20:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:32:57 -0500, Andrew Berg wrote:
>
>> On 2014.04.15 17:18, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>> Yeah, that's the wrong way to do it, and they shouldn't have done that.
>>> "python" needs to mean Python 2.x for a long time.
>> Or maybe expl
It is more than clear to me, Python did and does not
understand the "unicode case".
jmf
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I'm actually asking a serious question. How does a distro "actively hide"
> something publicly available on the Internet? Note that, on Linux (when
> you talk about "distributions", you probably don't mean OS X or Windows)
> all the compil
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Converting "print spam" to "print(spam)" is the trivial part of it. The
> biggest change between Python 2.x and 3.x is the bytes to Unicode shift,
> and that is *not trivial*. Python 2.x tries very hard to make bytes and
> strings interope
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:48:06 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 4/15/2014 5:05 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> On 4/15/2014 2:08 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Terry Reedy writes:
> The 'mistake' is your OS, whatever it is, not providing
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:54:53 -0500, Mark H Harris wrote:
> I am noticing the call to 2.8 from time to time (blogs). All along I
> have been seeing the reluctance to migrate to 3.x as either stubborn or
> lazy; or both.
Migrating to 3.x can be a fair amount of work. Not as much work as
migrating
On 16 April 2014 01:42, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> Yes. Software included in Arch, and programs installed via distutils,
> will both work correctly under Arch. [...]
>
> I don't like how Arch
> created a situation where it was impossible to support Arch and Debian
> at the same time with standalone
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:32:57 -0500, Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.04.15 17:18, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> Yeah, that's the wrong way to do it, and they shouldn't have done that.
>> "python" needs to mean Python 2.x for a long time.
> Or maybe explicit is better than implicit:
>
> # python
> zsh: c
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:18:16 -0400, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 4/15/14 5:34 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>> On 15 April 2014 06:03, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> Terry Reedy :
>>>
Any decent system should have 3.4 available now.
>>>
>>> Really, now? Which system is that?
>>
>> Arch is on 3.4 *defaul
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
> On 15 April 2014 23:18, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> On 4/15/14 5:34 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>>> Arch is on 3.4 *default*.
>>>
>>> $> python
>>> Python 3.4.0 (default, Mar 17 2014, 23:20:09)
>>> [...]
>>>
>> Yeah, that's the wron
On 4/15/14 7:11 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
On 15 April 2014 23:18, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On 4/15/14 5:34 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
Arch is on 3.4 *default*.
$> python
Python 3.4.0 (default, Mar 17 2014, 23:20:09)
[...]
Yeah, that's the wrong way to do it, and they shouldn't h
On 15 April 2014 23:18, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 4/15/14 5:34 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>> Arch is on 3.4 *default*.
>>
>> $> python
>> Python 3.4.0 (default, Mar 17 2014, 23:20:09)
>> [...]
>>
> Yeah, that's the wrong way to do it, and they shouldn't have done that.
> "python" nee
On 2014.04.15 17:18, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> Yeah, that's the wrong way to do it, and they shouldn't have done that.
> "python" needs to mean Python 2.x for a long time.
Or maybe explicit is better than implicit:
# python
zsh: command not found: python
# which python2.7
/usr/local/bin/python2.7
On 2014.04.15 16:02, Terry Reedy wrote:
> https://python3wos.appspot.com/
There seems to be a difference of opinion between this page and the Twisted
devs on what the "Python 2 only" classifier for PyPI means.
--
CPython 3.4.0 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 10.0
--
https://mail.python.org/mail
On 4/15/14 4:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
https://python3wos.appspot.com/
That's what I thought. Its really about getting the super-power wall
fixed up; everything else will fall in place. I do think that Guido
might be positioning himself as an enabler, of sorts. I can see
extending through
On 4/15/14 5:34 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
On 15 April 2014 06:03, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Terry Reedy :
Any decent system should have 3.4 available now.
Really, now? Which system is that?
Arch is on 3.4 *default*.
$> python
Python 3.4.0 (default, Mar 17 2014, 23:20:09)
[...]
On 15 April 2014 06:03, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Terry Reedy :
>
>> Any decent system should have 3.4 available now.
>
> Really, now? Which system is that?
Arch is on 3.4 *default*.
$> python
Python 3.4.0 (default, Mar 17 2014, 23:20:09)
[...]
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listi
On 4/15/14 3:54 PM, Mark H Harris wrote:
On 4/15/14 2:37 PM, Novocastrian_Nomad wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:32:14 PM UTC-6, Mark H. Harris wrote:
Can you site the announcement?
Thanks
http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/76d43e52d978?utm_content=buffer55d59&utm_medium=social&utm_source=fa
On 4/15/2014 3:54 PM, Mark H Harris wrote:
I don't think so any longer. Seems like the reluctance to migrate stems
from dependencies. Is there a list of primary dependencies ?
https://python3wos.appspot.com/
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 4/15/2014 5:05 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 4/15/2014 2:08 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Terry Reedy writes:
The 'mistake' is your OS, whatever it is, not providing 3.3. It is
already so old that it is off bugfix maintenance. Any decent system
On 4/15/14 2:37 PM, Novocastrian_Nomad wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:32:14 PM UTC-6, Mark H. Harris wrote:
Can you site the announcement?
Thanks
http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/76d43e52d978?utm_content=buffer55d59&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Thanks,
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:32:14 PM UTC-6, Mark H. Harris wrote:
> On 4/14/14 2:32 PM, Phil Dobbin wrote:
> > On a related note, Guido announced today that there will be no 2.8 &
> > that the eol for 2.7 will be 2020.
> >
>
> Can you site the announcement?
>
> Thanks
http://hg.python.org/peps/
On 4/15/2014 2:32 PM, Mark H Harris wrote:
On 4/14/14 2:32 PM, Phil Dobbin wrote:
On a related note, Guido announced today that there will be no 2.8 &
that the eol for 2.7 will be 2020.
Can you site the announcement?
It is part of a thread on pydev list.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mai
On 4/15/2014 7:33 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Terry Reedy writes:
3.4.0 was released a month ago with Windows and Mac installers and
source for everything else. I know Ubuntu was testing the release
candidate so I presume it is or will very soon have 3.4 officially
available. Since there was a six m
On 4/15/2014 1:21 PM, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
This is all quite aside from the fact that one should be able to
unpack a tarball and 'make xxx'.
True, but in Debian Linux (so probably also Linux) one needs to
install some zlib packages and some other stuff (https related IIRC)
before compiling
On 4/14/14 2:32 PM, Phil Dobbin wrote:
On a related note, Guido announced today that there will be no 2.8 &
that the eol for 2.7 will be 2020.
Can you site the announcement?
Thanks
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
- Original Message -
> From: Terry Reedy
> To: python-list@python.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8
>
> On 4/15/2014 1:03 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Terry Reedy :
>>
>&
Terry Reedy writes:
> 3.4.0 was released a month ago with Windows and Mac installers and
> source for everything else. I know Ubuntu was testing the release
> candidate so I presume it is or will very soon have 3.4 officially
> available. Since there was a six month series of alpha, beta, and
> c
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 04:33:24 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 4/15/2014 2:08 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Terry Reedy writes:
>>
>>> The 'mistake' is your OS, whatever it is, not providing 3.3. It is
>>> already so old that it is off bugfix maintenance. Any decent system
>>> should have 3.4 available n
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 4/15/2014 2:08 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>> Terry Reedy writes:
>>
>>> The 'mistake' is your OS, whatever it is, not providing 3.3. It is
>>> already so old that it is off bugfix maintenance. Any decent system
>>> should have 3.4 available n
On 4/15/2014 2:08 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Terry Reedy writes:
The 'mistake' is your OS, whatever it is, not providing 3.3. It is
already so old that it is off bugfix maintenance. Any decent system
should have 3.4 available now.
I think you mean “… should have Python 3.3 available now”, yes?
On 4/15/2014 1:03 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Terry Reedy :
Any decent system should have 3.4 available now.
Really, now? Which system is that?
3.4.0 was released a month ago with Windows and Mac installers and
source for everything else. I know Ubuntu was testing the release
candidate so I
Le lundi 14 avril 2014 20:59:37 UTC+2, Ian a écrit :
> On Apr 14, 2014 11:46 AM, wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> Point of curiosity: if the first 256 codepoints of Unicode happened to
> correspond to cp1252 instead of Latin-1, would you still object to the FSR?
Yes.
---
cp1252: I'm perfectly understand
Terry Reedy writes:
> The 'mistake' is your OS, whatever it is, not providing 3.3. It is
> already so old that it is off bugfix maintenance. Any decent system
> should have 3.4 available now.
I think you mean “… should have Python 3.3 available now”, yes?
--
\ “I wish there was a knob on
Terry Reedy :
> Any decent system should have 3.4 available now.
Really, now? Which system is that?
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 4/14/2014 8:56 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
http://blog.startifact.com/posts/the-call-of-python-28.html so in
response to the last line, who *IS* going to do all of the required work?
Steve Dower of Microsoft proposed a similar idea of a migration version
of 2.7 after talking with people from b
On 4/14/2014 9:51 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico :
If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and be
done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev time
into a 2.8?
Somewhat related. Only yesterday I ported/reimplemented a software
package to p
On 14/04/2014 13:56, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> http://blog.startifact.com/posts/the-call-of-python-28.html so in
> response to the last line, who *IS* going to do all of the required work?
>
On a related note, Guido announced today that there will be no 2.8 &
that the eol for 2.7 will be 2020.
Che
On 4/14/14 2:59 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
Point of curiosity: if the first 256 codepoints of Unicode happened to
correspond to cp1252 instead of Latin-1, would you still object to the FSR?
Many of us on the list would appreciate it if you didn't open that
particular can of worms. You are of course
On Apr 14, 2014 11:46 AM, wrote:
>
> I will most probably backport two quite large applications
> to Py27 ("scientific data processing apps").
These applications are already on Python 3? Why do you want them on Python
2? Even the people talking about a 2.8 are only seeing it as an upgrade
path to
Mark Lawrence writes:
> On 14/04/2014 14:51, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Chris Angelico :
>>
>>> If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and
>>> be done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev
>>> time into a 2.8?
>
> The people who haven't had enough time
I will most probably backport two quite large applications
to Py27 ("scientific data processing apps").
It's more a question of willingness, than a technical
difficulty. Then basta.
Note: cp1252 is good enough. (latin1/iso8859-1 not!).
jmf
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> So not only do we have a schism between python2 and python3 but there's
>> one between 3.0 and 3.3. I can't help but wonder if PEP 414 was a
>> mistake.
>
>
> I still believe that PEP 404 was the correct thing to do. PEP 414 was a no
> bra
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> So get Python 3.3 for your system, then.
>
> That'll have to wait till it's time for an OS overhaul. I don't do those
> every year.
What OS? Since getting 3.3 isn't just a matter of "grab the .msi/.dmg
file from pytho
On 14/04/2014 14:51, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico :
If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and be
done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev time
into a 2.8?
The people who haven't had enough time over the last eight years to plan
their
Chris Angelico :
> So get Python 3.3 for your system, then.
That'll have to wait till it's time for an OS overhaul. I don't do those
every year.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and be
>> done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev time
>> into a 2.8?
>
> Somewhat related. Only yesterday I ported/reimplemented
Chris Angelico :
> If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and be
> done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev time
> into a 2.8?
Somewhat related. Only yesterday I ported/reimplemented a software
package to python3. On the finish line, I ran into a p
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> http://blog.startifact.com/posts/the-call-of-python-28.html so in response
> to the last line, who *IS* going to do all of the required work?
Only someone for whom it's less work to build Python 2.8 than it is to
port their code to Python 3
http://blog.startifact.com/posts/the-call-of-python-28.html so in
response to the last line, who *IS* going to do all of the required work?
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
---
This email is free from viru
54 matches
Mail list logo
