11–20 of 119 posts
http://bugs.python.org/issue3982
They got rid of format for ordinary strings, and since we have to use bytestrings for handling hg's binary format, converting back and forth with .decode and .encode just to get the formatting is a lot of work.
The Python devs have actually acknowledged this use case and apologised to hg. Kinda weird, considering how Python itself is hosted with hg. :-/
Missing a question. "Would you switch to python 3 if they brought back the print statement" Edit: I really just like the statement for the interpreter, and IPython Notebook. To me the statement syntax feels less like programming, and more like using a computer.
I don't mind the print statement/function thing but I am bothered by the pain when dealing with byte strings. I use Python to talk to hardware that doesn't speak unicode, the contortions I have to go through to get byte strings to behave correctly on py3 are frustrating. I have no problem with the default string being unicode, but why can't byte strings be implemented like the unicode strings were done on py2.x?
For Mercurial, this is the biggest problem with Python 3: http://bugs.python.org/issue3982 They got rid of format for ordinary strings, and since we have to use bytestrings for handling hg's binary format, converting back and forth with .decode and .encode just to get the formatting is a lot of work. The Python devs have actually acknowledged this use case and apologised to hg. Kinda weird, considering how Python its…
Missing a question. "Would you switch to python 3 if they brought back the print statement" Edit: I really just like the statement for the interpreter, and IPython Notebook. To me the statement syntax feels less like programming, and more like using a computer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mind the print statement/function thing but I am bothered by the pain when dealing with byte strings. I use Python to talk to hardware that doesn't speak unicode, the contortions I have to go through to get byte strings to behave correctly on py3 are frustrating. I have no problem with the default string being unicode, but why can't byte strings be implemented like the unicode strings were done on py2.x?
What's the specific issue? I find it solves loads of issues before where you could mix bytes and unicode by accident. Not only are they more explicit, I find the fact that `b'\0'[0] == 0` - way better when working with actual bytes.
The biggest thing that drives me nuts about py3 is just that its repl doesn't evaluate generators. I'm sure they had their reasons, but I use python as my go-to calculator, and when simple operations with maps/ranges give me a representation of a generator ("<map object at ...", whatever), then it's just less useful to me. I could be alone in that use case though...
>>> map(lambda x: x*x, range(1,10))
>>> list(_)
[1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81]
Wtp ?
There was a dynamic graph somewhere showing the number Python 3 and Python 2 packages on PyPi against time, no amount of googling can find it, does anyone know what I'm referring to? I'd love that link.