PyChecker work with Python 2.3?

Discussion in 'Python' started by achrist@easystreet.com, Aug 3, 2003.

  1. Guest

    The pychecker site says that pychecker works with versions
    1.5 through 2.2. Any reason to expect that 2.3 breaks it?
    Anyone tried it to see?

    TIA


    Al
     
    , Aug 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > The pychecker site says that pychecker works with versions
    > 1.5 through 2.2. Any reason to expect that 2.3 breaks it?
    > Anyone tried it to see?


    Why don't *you*?

    -- Gerhard
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gerhard_H=E4ring?=, Aug 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Al> The pychecker site says that pychecker works with versions
    Al> 1.5 through 2.2. Any reason to expect that 2.3 breaks it?
    Al> Anyone tried it to see?

    I run Python CVS as my normal Python on my laptop. I've never had a problem
    with PyChecker.

    Skip
     
    Skip Montanaro, Aug 3, 2003
    #3
  4. Guest

    Gerhard Häring wrote:
    >
    > wrote:
    > > The pychecker site says that pychecker works with versions
    > > 1.5 through 2.2. Any reason to expect that 2.3 breaks it?
    > > Anyone tried it to see?

    >
    > Why don't *you*?
    >


    Smart people learn from their mistakes. Very smart people
    learn from other people's mistakes.


    Al
     
    , Aug 3, 2003
    #4
  5. wrote:
    > Gerhard Häring wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The pychecker site says that pychecker works with versions
    >>>1.5 through 2.2. Any reason to expect that 2.3 breaks it?
    >>>Anyone tried it to see?

    >>
    >>Why don't *you*?

    >
    > Smart people learn from their mistakes. Very smart people
    > learn from other people's mistakes.


    If you think you are so smart, why don't you use your time more
    economically then and just try it out?

    -- Gerhard
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gerhard_H=E4ring?=, Aug 3, 2003
    #5
  6. [Gerhard Häring]

    > wrote:
    > > Gerhard Häring wrote:
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>The pychecker site says that pychecker works with versions
    > >>>1.5 through 2.2. Any reason to expect that 2.3 breaks it?
    > >>>Anyone tried it to see?
    > >>
    > >>Why don't *you*?

    > > Smart people learn from their mistakes. Very smart people
    > > learn from other people's mistakes.


    > If you think you are so smart, why don't you use your time more economically
    > then and just try it out?


    Come on, guys!

    What's so wrong, asking if someone had success or problems with something?
    Asserting for oneself that a package `works' may be a bigger undertaking
    than one might think of. Quickly trying simple cases is one thing. But
    being solid in all conditions is another game. If unit testing is popular
    in these days, this is because people feel an urge of being able to answer
    such questions, however imperfect unit testing may be.

    It looks like time economical, to me, asking to a crowd of interesting
    people if someone hit any problem using a package under specified
    conditions, compared to trying all alone to ascertain the quality. There is
    of course the danger of abusive laziness, but we should be careful and
    reserved, before silently assuming that our correspondent is rotten lazy.

    --
    François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Fran=E7ois_Pinard?=, Aug 3, 2003
    #6
  7. wrote in message news:<>...
    > Gerhard Häring wrote:
    > >
    > > wrote:
    > > > The pychecker site says that pychecker works with versions
    > > > 1.5 through 2.2. Any reason to expect that 2.3 breaks it?
    > > > Anyone tried it to see?

    > >
    > > Why don't *you*?
    > >

    >
    > Smart people learn from their mistakes. Very smart people
    > learn from other people's mistakes.
    >
    >
    > Al


    I context one can learn anything from second hand mistakes.
    There is much more satisfaction in making your own ;)

    Michele
     
    Michele Simionato, Aug 3, 2003
    #7
  8. Guest

    Gerhard Häring wrote:
    >
    >
    > If you think you are so smart, why don't you use your time more
    > economically then and just try it out?
    >


    If I upgrade python to 2.3 I also must upgrade:

    ctypes
    py2exe
    pysqlite
    win32all
    wxPython

    With a dial-up connection that's quite a bit of download time.
    Then, if there is a problem, I must roll back:

    python
    ctypes
    py2exe
    pysqlite
    win32all
    wxPython

    And hope that everything rolls back ok.

    Meanwhile, I've got a reasonably busy application-level
    to-do list going.

    Better to ask a question than worry about all that, no?


    Al
     
    , Aug 3, 2003
    #8
  9. Guest

    François Pinard wrote:
    >
    > There is of course the danger of abusive laziness, but we should be
    > careful and reserved, before silently assuming that our correspondent > is rotten lazy.
    >


    I may be rotten and I may be lazy, but rotten lazy no one has ever
    called me AFAIK. I post code here whenever I've got anything worth
    sharing or finding out if it's not worth sharing. (I should publish
    a paper sometime about using Google Groups as a substitute for CVS.)
    About a month ago I made some comments about wxHtml and wound up
    debugging code for a correspondent by email who wasn't getting it
    to work. That was good.

    The world has brilliant people and pedestrian people. I'm more
    pedestrian. I'll admit that I ask more questions than I answer,
    but that helps keep this newsgroup balanced, as there are so many
    brilliant people here who answer more questions than they ask. If
    it wasn't for people like me, the brilliant ones would be here
    answering questions that noboby had asked. Life's like that.
    Everyone has a place at the table. First you eat, and then you
    get eaten.


    Al
     
    , Aug 3, 2003
    #9
  10. Guest

    Skip Montanaro wrote:
    >
    > >> If you think you are so smart, why don't you use your time more
    > >> economically then and just try it out?

    >
    > al> If I upgrade python to 2.3 I also must upgrade:
    >
    > al> ctypes
    > al> py2exe
    > al> pysqlite
    > al> win32all
    > al> wxPython
    >
    > Just to see if pychecker works?


    Just to see if pychecker works for the software for which it matters
    to me if pychecker works.

    > Why not just configure Python with a
    > different --prefix=... flag? That's assuming you're on a unix-like > system.


    I'm not.

    > If you're on Windows (as it appears you are), Python 2.3 installs in
    > c:\Python23 by default which shouldn't disturb your earlier Python
    > installation unless you were tanked the day you installed it and put > it in
    > c:\Python23.
    >


    If I'm on a Windows system, and I am, I am very suspicious of any
    claims that it is possible to install and uninstall anything easily
    and come out exactly where I was before. About a month ago I noticed
    that my jaz drive was working not too well, so I upgraded Iomega's
    tools. That broke NT, it wouldn't uninstall, and I spent 3.5 days
    trying to fix NT. (This was actually within a week after NT had been
    dropped from Microsoft's supported list, and all the MS knowledgebase
    articles about NT and NT workstation service packs and patches had
    been purged from the MS website). If you work with Windows much, you
    learn the downside of promiscuous installing. There's always a risk.
    Better to ask twice and install once.


    Al
     
    , Aug 3, 2003
    #10
  11. John J. Lee Guest

    writes:

    > The pychecker site says that pychecker works with versions
    > 1.5 through 2.2. Any reason to expect that 2.3 breaks it?
    > Anyone tried it to see?


    No, but 2.3 has no major language changes, and concentrates on library
    improvements, so I'd guess it's likely there are no major problems
    running Pychecker.


    John
     
    John J. Lee, Aug 3, 2003
    #11
  12. Guest

    Skip Montanaro wrote:
    >
    > Al> The pychecker site says that pychecker works with versions
    > Al> 1.5 through 2.2. Any reason to expect that 2.3 breaks it?
    > Al> Anyone tried it to see?
    >
    > I run Python CVS as my normal Python on my laptop. I've never had a problem
    > with PyChecker.
    >


    Based on this encouraging news, I have upgraded all the packages listed
    and run pychecker on a program using them all. It looks to work fine.
    Speed was not noticeably increased or decreased.

    The only change required in my sources is evidently that the csv
    module no longer has a parser(); it's a reader(aFile).

    About the only noticeably slow part of the program is the part that
    read a gzipped csv file. Unzipping and parsing a 170kb gzip file
    took about 20 sec with v2.2.3, and takes only about 9 sec with v2.3
    (200 MHz machine). So, the speed increase is big where I needed it
    most. This is great.


    Al
     
    , Aug 4, 2003
    #12
  13. Al> The only change required in my sources is evidently that the csv
    Al> module no longer has a parser(); it's a reader(aFile).

    Sounds like you were using a different csv file reader/writer, perhaps
    Object Craft's. The csv module which is part of 2.3 is a new module in the
    core. It has a different interface than Object Craft's csv module. (Note
    that the Object Craft folks are the primary developers of the new csv module
    as well.)

    Skip
     
    Skip Montanaro, Aug 4, 2003
    #13
  14. John Machin Guest

    wrote in message news:<>...

    >
    > The only change required in my sources is evidently that the csv
    > module no longer has a parser(); it's a reader(aFile).
    >


    Python doesn't break version-to-version compatibility like that. You
    have to pay lots of money to software vendors to get them to do that
    to you.

    No, "the" csv module is new in 2.3. Under 2.2 you had been using "a"
    3rd party extension, written by Dave Cole. Same name, similar purpose,
    different contents.

    Another case: the 'optik' 3rd party extension was sanctified as
    'optparse'. Different name, mostly same contents.

    Hint: before upgrading to a new Python version, check what extensions
    you have in your site-packages directory. Read "what's new in Python
    m.n". Some of the site-packages you may have trialled and abandoned,
    most will need to be upgraded to be compatible with the new Python
    version (especially if you are running Windows), and in a few cases
    (e.g. csv and optik) you may want to switch to a new module, requiring
    changes to your source.
     
    John Machin, Aug 4, 2003
    #14
  15. Guest

    Skip Montanaro wrote:
    >
    > Al> The only change required in my sources is evidently that the csv
    > Al> module no longer has a parser(); it's a reader(aFile).
    >
    > Sounds like you were using a different csv file reader/writer,
    > perhaps Object Craft's. The csv module which is part of 2.3 is a
    > new module in the core. It has a different interface than Object
    > Craft's csv module.


    I knew that was coming, and I hoped it would be compatible. It
    isn't, but it's close enough that I just had to change about 5 lines
    and cut out about ten to switch from one API to the other.

    I didn't have to change anything else. I guess that I'm still ok
    importing generators from the future even though they are no longer
    in the future.

    This moving from one release to the next is really very nice and easy.
    With other tools and languages, you have to wait for all the
    third-party vendors to upgrade their packages, then see what works
    and what doesn't. All the 3rd party packages for python that I was
    relying on under 2.2 were available for 2.3 the day that 2.3 went
    final.


    Al
     
    , Aug 5, 2003
    #15
  16. Terry Reedy Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I didn't have to change anything else. I guess that I'm still ok
    > importing generators from the future even though they are no longer
    > in the future.


    It is quite intentional that future imports be simply ignored when
    'obsolete' and not suddenly make program not run.

    tjr
     
    Terry Reedy, Aug 5, 2003
    #16
  17. Guest

    Terry Reedy wrote:
    >
    > It is quite intentional that future imports be simply ignored when
    > 'obsolete' and not suddenly make program not run.
    >


    Don't worry about it. I can find plenty of other ways to have my
    programs not run.

    Al
     
    , Aug 5, 2003
    #17
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tim Peters

    RE: PyChecker work with Python 2.3?

    Tim Peters, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    354
    John Machin
    Aug 4, 2003
  2. Pedro Werneck
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    Pedro Werneck
    Aug 18, 2003
  3. Pekka Niiranen
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    518
    Josiah Carlson
    Oct 15, 2004
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    414
  5. Diez B. Roggisch

    Re: PyChecker under python's virtualenv

    Diez B. Roggisch, Feb 3, 2010, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    659
    Diez B. Roggisch
    Feb 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page