🌐 Mailman 3 June 2010 - Python-list - python.org

[python-openid] 2.2.3 python package missing
by Stéphane Klein June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010

Hi, I write to you, to inform I can't install python-openid 2.2.3 version. I've writed to the author : """ I've work on a project, I use AuthKit and this tool have a dependency with python-openid-2.2.3 http://openidenabled.com/files/python-openid/packages/python-openid-2.2.3.t… this file is missing on your server. To fix deployment issue, can you keep older library version ? """ Regards, Stephane

2 3

[ANN] Benchmarker 1.1.0 released - a samll benchmark utility
by Makoto Kuwata June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010

I released Benchmarker 1.1.0. http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Benchmarker/ Benchmarker is a small utility to benchmark your code. Example ======= ex.py:: def fib(n): return n <= 2 and 1 or fib(n-1) + fib(n-2) from benchmarker import Benchmarker bm = Benchmarker(30) # or Benchmarker(width=30, out=sys.stderr, header=True) ## Python 2.5 or later with bm('fib(n) (n=33)'): fib(33) with bm('fib(n) (n=34)'): fib(34) with bm('fib(n) (n=35)'): fib(35) ## Python 2.4 bm('fib(n) (n=33)').run(fib, 33) # or .run(lambda: fib(33)) bm('fib(n) (n=34)').run(fib, 34) # or .run(lambda: fib(34)) bm('fib(n) (n=35)').run(fib, 35) # or .run(lambda: fib(35)) ## print compared matrix bm.print_compared_matrix(sort=False, transpose=False) Output:: $ python ex.py utime stime total real fib(n) (n=33) 1.890 0.000 1.890 1.900 fib(n) (n=34) 3.030 0.010 3.040 3.058 fib(n) (n=35) 4.930 0.010 4.940 4.963 --------------------------------------------------------------- real [01] [02] [03] [01] fib(n) (n=33) 1.900s - 60.9% 161.2% [02] fib(n) (n=34) 3.058s -37.9% - 62.3% [03] fib(n) (n=35) 4.963s -61.7% -38.4% - Changes in release 1.1.0 ======================== * Enhance Benchmarker.run() to take function args. :: bm = Benchmarker() bm('fib(34)').run(fib, 34) # same as .run(lambda: fib(34)) * (experimental) Enhance Benchmarker.run() to use function name as title if title is not specified. :: def fib34(): fib(34) bm = Benchmarker() bm.run(fib34) # same as bm('fib34').run(fib34) * Enhanced to support compared matrix of benchmark results. :: bm = Benchmarker(9) bm('fib(30)').run(fib, 30) bm('fib(31)').run(fib, 31) bm('fib(32)').run(fib, 32) bm.print_compared_matrix(sort=False, transpose=False) ## output example # utime stime total real #fib(30) 0.440 0.000 0.440 0.449 #fib(31) 0.720 0.000 0.720 0.722 #fib(32) 1.180 0.000 1.180 1.197 #-------------------------------------------------------------------------- # real [01] [02] [03] #[01] fib(30) 0.4487s - 60.9% 166.7% #[02] fib(31) 0.7222s -37.9% - 65.7% #[03] fib(32) 1.1967s -62.5% -39.6% - * Benchmark results are stored into Benchmarker.results as a list of tuples. :: bm = Benchmarker() bm('fib(34)').run(fib, 34) bm('fib(35)').run(fib, 35) for result in bm.results: print result ## output example: #('fib(34)', 4.37, 0.02, 4.39, 4.9449) #('fib(35)', 7.15, 0.05, 7.20, 8.0643) * Time format is changed from '%10.4f' to '%9.3f' * Changed to run full-GC for each benchmarks -- regards, makoto kuwata

3 3

Re: I strongly dislike Python 3
by John Bokma June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010

geremy condra <debatem1(a)gmail.com> writes: > I'm starting to think Great, about time. Based on your previous reply I had the feeling you're a condescending prick, but now I am conviced, so *ploink*! -- John Bokma j3b Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development

1 0

Re: I strongly dislike Python 3
by John Bokma June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010

geremy condra <debatem1(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Bokma <john(a)castleamber.com> wrote: [..] >> I've used several operating systems over many years and each OS has its >> own issues. I am currently using mostly Linux and it's far from the >> flawless OS some people seem to think it is. While it's true that some >> things are easier on OS A than on OS B changing your operating system >> because one (minor) thing "doesn't work" is often not an option. > > Sure, linux has its flaws- but it does include a working shell OOTB, which > is what raised this question in the first place. As mentioned already by someone else, install bash on Windows and problem solved (it can be installed without Cygwin). >> On top of that, I don't think it's that hard to make a small program >> that one associates with .py files which checks the first line and feeds >> the .py to the correct version of Python based on the information in the >> aformentioned first line. > > I could spend my time reinventing all kinds of wheels. I'm just not sure > why I'd want to. It's clear that you are not interested in running Windows. But the world is not limited to what you want. There are people out there who are /not/ interested to switch to a different OS just because it's the easiest option to /you/. >> Another option (instead of installing a better shell) might be to make >> several VMs, each with their own Python version. Run subversion (or any >> other version control system) on your host, and you can test whatever >> you want. > > Is this seriously your solution? Sure it is. Maybe not for you, but there are people who prefer an isolated VM to test stuff in some cases. I am one of them. > Can you see why I would rather have a > working shell than have to automate test suites across a half dozen > VMs? Install bash in that case, problem solved. Yet another solution is to have your test suite change the file association for the .py (and related) extensions to the correct version of Python. I know it's not for you, you're happy on Linux, but for others this might work perfectly. >> There are plenty of people who are very happy with coding under an MS >> OS. I now and then miss those days :-). > > Ok, and for those people things like cygwin exist. My point is just that it > is frequently easier to do an actual linux install. Maybe in your specific case, sure. But /again/ there are plenty of people who use Windows /for a reason/. Why would one change an entire operation system just to have bash? It's not needed. On top of that, I have installed Cygwin and used it for a while, and don't see why installing Linux is easier. Especially if a majority of the other programs I want to use don't run under Wine / don't have alternatives on Linux (alternative as in a suitable alternative for /my/ needs). -- John Bokma j3b Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development

2 1

Re: I strongly dislike Python 3
by John Bokma June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010

Tim Golden <mail(a)timgolden.me.uk> writes: > On 28/06/2010 00:03, Eric_Dexter(a)msn.com wrote: >> It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one >> machine... I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start >> compiling them or just include the python2.5 exe if I port stuff and >> settle it that way.. > > I have Python versions 2.1-2.7 and 3.0-3.2 installed on my Windows > box without any problems. I don't often have to use the full range > (mostly, in fact, for confirming that my unit tests still run on > my few released modules). But I certainly do use several different > ones each day where I have to make sure I'm running the same version > as the user who's experiencing a problem. > > One technique I find particularly handy is to create a pythonxx.exe > hardlink in my c:\tools (which is always on my path), pointing to > c:\pythonxx\python.exe in turn. Then it's just a matter of: python25 > my-script.py > Even without that, it's only a question of c:\python25\python my-script.py > if I need to. > > I have in the past used a crude shebang-alike Python pre-processor > which hands off to the right version. It's a bit sluggish, though, > and that outweighed for me the slight convenience. YMMV You might want to look into the assoc command to (temporarily) associate .py & co with a different version of Python. -- John Bokma j3b Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development

2 1

Re: I strongly dislike Python 3
by John Bokma June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010

Stephen Hansen <me+list/python(a)ixokai.io> writes: > On 6/27/10 7:35 PM, John Bokma wrote: >> On top of that, I don't think it's that hard to make a small program >> that one associates with .py files which checks the first line and feeds >> the .py to the correct version of Python based on the information in the >> aformentioned first line. > > http://effbot.org/zone/exemaker.htm does approximately that and has > been very useful for me. Thanks for the link. -- John Bokma j3b Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development

1 0

Re: Why Is Escaping Data Considered So Magical?
by Jorgen Grahn June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010

On Mon, 2010-06-28, Kushal Kumaran wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp(a)snipabacken.se> wrote: >> On Sun, 2010-06-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> In message <roy-854954.20435125062010(a)news.panix.com>, Roy Smith wrote: >>> >>>> I recently fixed a bug in some production code. The programmer was >>>> careful to use snprintf() to avoid buffer overflows. The only problem >>>> is, he wrote something along the lines of: >>>> >>>> snprintf(buf, strlen(foo), foo); >>> >>> A long while ago I came up with this macro: >>> >>> #define Descr(v) &v, sizeof v >>> >>> making the correct version of the above become >>> >>> snprintf(Descr(buf), foo); >> >> This is off-topic, but I believe snprintf() in C can *never* safely be >> the only thing you do to the buffer: you also have to NUL-terminate it >> manually in some corner cases. See the documentation. > > snprintf goes to great lengths to be safe, in fact. You might be > thinking of strncpy. Yes, it was indeed strncpy I was thinking of. Thanks. But actually, the snprintf(3) man page I have is not 100% clear on this issue, so last time I used it, I added a manual NUL-termination plus a comment saying I wasn't sure it was needed. I normally use C++ or Python, so I am a bit rusty on these things. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

1 0

I strongly dislike Python 3
by Stefan Reich June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010

Hi there. Let me preface this by saying that I am a fan of Python. I use it regularly and I like it a lot. That is, I am using and liking Python 2.6. I don't like Python 3. I won't comment on the advanced stuff that is changed in Python 3, as I haven't look into that. My complaint is about changing the syntax of "print". This has probably been talked about on your lists, but I wasn't part of that discussion. And I think that everyone has a right to bring up a subject at any time if it is still important. And I believe it is because Python 3 is out there and it poses a real problem. The main problem is that Python 3 is incompatible with almost all scripts written for Python 2 (if they use print). And it gets worse: Python 3 scripts are incompatible with Python 2! (If they use print variants, like writing to a file.) Thus the world of Python scripts is split in two incompatible factions. All for simplifying the syntax of one statement. That, to me, is pure insanity. Here's the advantages: -Some arcane stuff like redefining "print" in a module (which 99% of users will never do) allegedly gets easier. -Any more? And here's the disadvantages: -The Python 3 syntax actually requires more keystrokes. -Python world split in half. There is now a Python 2 world and a Python 3 world, both incompatible with each other. -Libraries written for Python 2 cannot be mixed with libraries written for Python 3. -Developers have to choose between Python 2 and Python 3 and are bound to their choice afterwards. So there are basically no advantages and extremely significant disadvantages. The single advantage there is could certainly be achieved without breaking all scripts out there. Consider Java as a better example: JDK 1.6 still runs and compiles everything written for JDK 1.0. That is proper management. Python 3 is, I'm sorry to say, an example of unfathomably bad management. To reiterate, I am strongly in disfavor of Python 3 and will stick to Python 2, for as least as long as Python 3 breaks my scripts. Cheers, Stefan

11 12

Extension modules and common routines in Python/C API
by ty ty June 28, 2010

June 28, 2010

Hi, folks! I'm writing wrapper for C library. This library consist of several parts. And i want split my extension package into different extension modules. I think, this is the right way ;-) But, there are some common parts that exist in extension package, get_library_version, Error, and so on. I've decided to create additional module, named core, where these routines and variables are defined. And when get_library_version, for example, is used by programmer, Error, in opposite, is used by routines in another modules. As i mentioned in ( above mail), i use create_error for adding new exception class with neccessary fields. Now i call create_error in initcore function, which initialize core module. But, if i don't import package.core, and only import package.module, when package.module.function fails, python's runtime throws error: SystemError: error return without exception set because, Error is not properly initialize in that point. And, if i add: if(!Error) create_error(); in init functions of all my modules, create_error runs several times (for each imported module). I think, i get a different Error every time. I can't check this because of above issue. So, my questions is: how can i organize this pattern? Should i add import package.core in __init__.py in package dir? Or should i create subclass exception of Error in every module? What is the right and pythonic way for doing that? :) Thanks! (crosspost from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3119026/extension-modules-and-common-rou… )

2 1

Creating exception class with custom fields in Python/C API
by ty ty June 27, 2010

June 27, 2010

Hello, list! I'm writing a wrapper for C-library. When something goes wrong in that library, i can get error details. And i want to assign them to fields of my own exception class. For this purpose, i looked throught Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes.c (in python source tree) and implemented same things. Briefly: define PyObject * Error in header file, write init and other necessary functions assign them to PyMethodDef array initialize class's dict with methods above (in function create_error) create new exception with no base class and with dict (in function create_error) call to create_error and assign Error class to module (PyModule_AddObject) throw error with PyErr_SetObject(Error, tpl);, where tpl is tuple with error details, which are assigned to Error's fields in init function All of this is consistent with what i saw in Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes.c, i think. But it doesn't work: when i call PyErr_SetObject(Error, tpl);, Python's runtime raises error: TypeError: unbound method __init__() must be called with Error instance as first argument (got str instance instead) And PyObject_Print(Error, stdout, 0); returns: {'__init__': <unbound method Error.__init__> ...} It's item for init function in PyMethodDef array: {"__init__", myerror_init, METH_VARARGS, "initialize error"} and it's function's signature: static PyObject * myerror_init(PyObject * self, PyObject *args) (python version -- 2.6.4) Why methods are unbound? And what i've missed? Or what is the right and pythonic way to define exception with custom class attributes? Thanks. (crosspost from stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3118617/creating-exception-class-with-cu… )

1 0