[The HTML version of this Summary is available at http://www.python.org/dev/summary/2005-08-01_2005-08-15.html]
Some wise words from Donovan Baarda in the PEP 347 discussions:
It is true that some well designed/developed software becomes reliable very quickly. However, it still takes heavy use over time to prove that.
The PEP editors have introduced a new PEP category: "Process", for PEPs that don't fit into the "Standards Track" and "Informational" categories. More detail can be found in PEP 1, which is itself a Process PEP.
Python 2.4.2 is tentatively scheduled for a mid-to-late September release and a first alpha of Python 2.5 for March 2006 (with a final release around May/June). This means that a PEP for the 2.5 release, detailing what will be included, will likely be created soon; at present there are various accepted PEPs that have not yet been implemented.
The PEP 347 discussion from last fortnight continued this week, with a revision of the PEP, and a lot more discussion about possible version control software (RCS) for the Python repository, and where the repository should be hosted. Note that this is not a discussion about bug trackers, which will remain with Sourceforge (unless a separate PEP is developed for moving that).
Many revision control systems were extensively discussed, including Subversion (SVN), Perforce, Mercurial, and Monotone. Whichever system is moved to, it should be able to be hosted somewhere (if *.python.org, then it needs to be easily installable), needs to have software available to convert a repository from CVS, and ideally would be open-source; similarity to CVS is also an advantage in that it requires a smaller learning curve for existing developers. While Martin isn't willing to discuss every system there is, he will investigate those that make him curious, and will add other people's submissions to the PEP, where appropriate.
The thread included a short discussion about the authentication mechanism that svn.python.org will use; svn+ssh seems to be a clear winner, and a test repository will be setup by Martin next fortnight.
The possibility of moving to a distributed revision control system (particularly Bazaar-NG) was also brought up. Many people liked the idea of using a distributed revision control system, but it seems unlikely that Bazaar-NG is mature enough to be used for the main Python repository at the current time (a move to it at a later time is possible, but outside the scope of the PEP). Distributed RCS are meant to reduce the barrier to participation (anyone can create their own branches, for example); Bazaar-NG is also implemented in Python, which is of some benefit. James Y Knight pointed out svk, which lets developers create their own branches within SVN.
In general, the python-dev crowd is in favour of moving to SVN. Initial concern about the demands on the volunteer admins should the repository be hosted at svn.python.org were addressed by Barry Warsaw, who believes that the load will be easily managed with the existing volunteers. Various alternative hosts were discussed, and if detailed reports about any of them are created, these can be added to the PEP.
While the fate of all PEPS lie with the BDFL (Guido), it is likely that the preferences of those that frequently check in changes, the pydotorg admins, and the release managers (who have all given favourable reports so far), will have a significant effect on the pronouncement of this PEP.
This fortnight mostly concluded the previous discussion about PEP 348, which sets out a roadmap for changes to the exception hierarchy in Python 3.0. The proposal was heavily scaled back to retain most of the current exception hierarchy unchanged. A new exception, BaseException, will be introduced above Exception in the current hierarchy, and KeyboardInterrupt and SystemExit will become siblings of Exception. The goal here is that:
will now do the right thing for most cases, that is, it will catch all the exceptions that you can generally recover from. The PEP would also move NotImplementedError out from under RuntimeError, and alter the semantics of the bare except so that:
is the equivalent of:
Only BaseException will appear in Python 2.5. The remaining modifications will not occur until Python 3.0.
Neil Schemenauer presented PEP 349, which tries to ease the transition to Python 3.0, in which there will be a bytes() type for byte data and a str() type for text data. Currently to convert an object to text, you have one of three options:
PEP 349 attempts to address this problem by introducing a text() builtin which returns str or unicode instances unmodified, and returns the result of calling __str__() on the object otherwise. Guido preferred to instead relax the restrictions on str() to allow it to return unicode objects. Neil implemented such a patch, and found that it broke only two test cases. The discussion stopped shortly after Neil's report however, so it was unclear if any permanent changes had been agreed upon.
Guido made a few other Python 3.0 suggestions in this thread:
However, none of these seemed to be solid commitments.
Armin Rigo brought up an issue with PEP 344 which proposes, among other things, adding a __traceback__ attribute to exceptions to avoid the hassle of extracting it from sys.exc_info(). Armin pointed out that if exceptions grow a __traceback__ attribute, every statement:
except Exception, e:
will create a cycle:
Despite the fact that Python has cyclic garbage collection, there are still some situations where cycles like this can cause problems. Armin showed an example of such a case:
class X: def __del__(self): try: typo except Exception, e: e_type, e_value, e_tb = sys.exc_info()
Even in current Python, instances of the X class are uncollectible. When garbage collection runs and tries to collect an X object, it calls the __del__() method. This creates the cycle:
The X object itself is available through this cycle (in f_locals['self']), so the X object's refcount does not drop to 0 when __del__() returns, so it cannot be collected. The next time garbage collection runs, it finds that the X object has not been collected, calls its __del__() method again and repeats the process.
Tim Peters suggested this problem could be solved by declaring that __del__() methods are called exactly once. This allows the above X object to be collected because on the second run of the garbage collection, __del__() is not called again. Thus, the refcount of the X object is not incremented, and so it is collected by garbage collection. However, guaranteeing that __del__() is called only once means keeping track somehow of which objects' __del__() methods were called, which seemed somewhat unattractive.
There was also brief talk about removing __del__ in favor of weakrefs, but those waters seemed about as murky as the garbage collection ones.
Guido explained that these days exceptions should always be raised as:
raise SomeException("some argument")
raise SomeException, "some argument"
The second will go away in Python 3.0, and is only present now for backwards compatibility. (It was necessary when strings could be exceptions, in order to pass both the exception "type" and message.) PEPs 8 and 3000 were accordingly updated.
When using pdb, the only way to skip to the end of a loop is to set a breakpoint on the line after the loop. Ilya Sandler suggested adding an optimal numeric argument to pdb's "next" comment to indicate how many lines of code should be skipped. Martin v. Lowis pointed out that this differs from gdb's "next <n>" command, which does "next" n times. Ilya suggested implementing gdb's "until" command instead, which gained Martin's approval.
It was also pointed out that pdb is one of the less Pythonic modules, particularly in terms of the ability to subclass/extend, and would be a good candidate for rewriting, if anyone had the inclination and time.
Raymond Hettinger has been checking-in the new implementation for sets in Python 2.5. The implementation is based heavily on dictobject.c, the code for Python dict() objects, and generally deviates only when there is an obvious gain in doing so. Raymond posted a proposed C API sets; no comments were forthcoming and it was implemented for Py2.5 without changes.
This is a summary of traffic on the python-dev mailing list from August 01, 2005 through August 15, 2005. It is intended to inform the wider Python community of on-going developments on the list on a semi-monthly basis. An archive of previous summaries is available online.
An RSS feed of the titles of the summaries is available. You can also watch comp.lang.python or comp.lang.python.announce for new summaries (or through their email gateways of python-list or python-announce, respectively, as found at http://mail.python.org).
Tim Lesher has had to bow out from the summaries for now; many thanks to him for the contributions he made over the last few months.
This is the 1st summary written by the python-dev summary confederacy of Steve Bethard and Tony Meyer (Thanks Tim!).
To contact us, please send email:
Do not post to comp.lang.python if you wish to reach us.
The Python Software Foundation is the non-profit organization that holds the intellectual property for Python. It also tries to advance the development and use of Python. If you find the python-dev Summary helpful please consider making a donation. You can make a donation at http://python.org/psf/donations.html . Every penny helps so even a small donation with a credit card, check, or by PayPal helps.
The in-development version of the documentation for Python can be found at http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/ and should be used when looking up any documentation for new code; otherwise use the current documentation as found at http://docs.python.org/ . PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals) are located at http://www.python.org/peps/ . To view files in the Python CVS online, go to http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/python/ . Reported bugs and suggested patches can be found at the SourceForge project page.
Please note that this summary is written using reStructuredText. Any unfamiliar punctuation is probably markup for reST (otherwise it is probably regular expression syntax or a typo =); you can safely ignore it. We do suggest learning reST, though; it's simple and is accepted for PEP markup and can be turned into many different formats like HTML and LaTeX. Unfortunately, even though reST is standardized, the wonders of programs that like to reformat text do not allow us to guarantee you will be able to run the text version of this summary through Docutils as-is unless it is from the original text file.