pre-announce: Python 2.4a1 is about a month away

A

Anthony Baxter

This is a pre-announcement that the first alpha of Python 2.4
is about a month away. The purpose of this notice is to give
people a heads up - if you have a bug that you want to see
fixed for 2.4, start looking at it now.

Fixes are welcome through the release cycle, although after
the first beta fixes that result in a change to behaviour
will be much less likely to be accepted.

So, if you have a bug you want to see fixed, what should you do?

- If it's not logged on SF, log it.
- If it's logged, consider adding a patch that fixes the problem,
or at least a simple test case that demonstrates the bug.
- If someone else has supplied a fix, see if this fix works for
you, and post your results to the bug.
- If there's a working fix, feel free to add a note asking for
the fix to go into CVS. The SF bug tracker for Python has a
_lot_ of bugs in it, and it's easy for bugs to be overlooked.

If you're just interested in what's coming up in 2.4, see the
current development version of the "What's New in 2.4" document
at http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/whatsnew/whatsnew24.html


On behalf of the python-dev team, thanks!
Anthony

[This form of pre-announcement will hopefully become a part of
the release process for all future releases of Python, both
major and bugfix releases, to give people a chance to get their
bugfix-of-choice submitted in time. Any feedback on this process,
please feel free to email me]
 
I

Irmen de Jong

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=839496&group_id=5470&atid=305470


Is anybody using SimpleHTTPServer? It contains a special case for text
files, that makes it open them in another way as other files. This
causes the reported content-length to be unequal to the actual length
of the request response data (which isn't correct, obviously).

This trivial patch removes the special case from SimpleHTTPServer.

Please review and/or make a vote for this patch; the current
SimpleHTTPServer is unusable for text files...

--Irmen de Jong.
 
I

Iwan van der Kleyn

Anthony said:
the first alpha of Python 2.4 is about a month away.

Anyone know whether 2.4 will include function/class decorators?

http://python.fyxm.net/peps/pep-0320.html - Python 2.4 Release Schedule
http://python.fyxm.net/peps/pep-0318.html - Decorators for Functions,
Methods and Classes
http://shattered.teched.net/www.python.org/peps/pep-0318.html -
Function/Method Decorator Syntax

Basically, when I try to explain to other developers how you have to
define a property or class method in Python, the general response is
"why did they came up with that hare brained idea!?". I cannot find
another answer then to say that the python developers in this case
created the infrastructure but forgot the syntax. Whether or not that is
the case, I think you can fairly argue that the present syntax goes
against the grain of one of Python's core qualities: code clarity.

Any thoughts or remarks?

(Or am I missing something here? In the PEP 318 Guido van Rossum is
stated to express "skepticism about the concept")

Regards,

Iwan
 
D

David Fraser

Iwan said:
Anyone know whether 2.4 will include function/class decorators?

http://python.fyxm.net/peps/pep-0320.html - Python 2.4 Release Schedule
http://python.fyxm.net/peps/pep-0318.html - Decorators for Functions,
Methods and Classes
http://shattered.teched.net/www.python.org/peps/pep-0318.html -
Function/Method Decorator Syntax

Basically, when I try to explain to other developers how you have to
define a property or class method in Python, the general response is
"why did they came up with that hare brained idea!?". I cannot find
another answer then to say that the python developers in this case
created the infrastructure but forgot the syntax. Whether or not that is
the case, I think you can fairly argue that the present syntax goes
against the grain of one of Python's core qualities: code clarity.

Any thoughts or remarks?

(Or am I missing something here? In the PEP 318 Guido van Rossum is
stated to express "skepticism about the concept")

I think the concept of decorators is great, but I don't like the syntax:
def foo(cls) using [synchronized(lock), classmethod]:
pass

What would be a really nice syntax that has the disadvantage of being
totally insane, but seems much more logical / expressive to me:

classmethod foo(cls):
pass

synchronized(lock) classmethod foo(cls):
pass

Or in a more standard way:

def classmethod foo(cls):
pass

def synchronized(lock) classmethod foo(cls):
pass

Anyway the syntactic concept here is using the decorator as an
adjective: define *this* kind of method. I think this represents the
intent of the statement better than using [list of functions] does.

Well there's been lots of discussion about this before and I'm not
neccessarily adding much new but you asked :)

David
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,899
Latest member
RodneyMcAu

Latest Threads

Top