Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #70218 > unrolled thread

Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-14 23:20 +1000
    Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-14 16:51 +0300
      Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-15 00:19 +1000
        Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-14 17:40 +0300
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-15 01:01 +1000
      Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-14 15:46 +0100
        Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2014-04-14 19:39 +0100
      Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-15 01:04 +1000
        Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-04-14 10:41 -0700
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-04-14 12:59 -0600
            Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-04-15 01:25 -0700
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-04-14 15:28 -0400
      Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-14 23:54 -0400
        Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-15 08:03 +0300
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-15 04:32 -0400
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-04-15 21:33 +1000
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Albert-Jan Roskam <fomcl@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-15 10:21 -0700
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-15 15:01 -0400
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-15 15:29 -0400
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2014-04-15 22:34 +0100
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-04-15 18:18 -0400
            Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-16 01:18 +0000
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu> - 2014-04-15 17:32 -0500
            Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-16 01:21 +0000
              Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu> - 2014-04-16 02:32 -0500
                Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-16 01:07 -0700
                Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-16 08:13 +0000
              Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-16 18:02 +1000
              Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu> - 2014-04-16 03:42 -0500
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2014-04-16 00:11 +0100
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-04-15 20:39 -0400
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2014-04-15 17:42 -0700
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2014-04-16 03:27 +0100
      Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-04-15 16:08 +1000
      Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-15 04:33 -0400
        Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-15 09:41 +0000
      Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-15 19:05 +1000
      Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-15 15:48 -0400
        Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-16 02:52 +0000
          Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-16 16:22 +1000
            Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8 wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-04-15 23:30 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#70218 — Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> http://blog.startifact.com/posts/the-call-of-python-28.html so in response
> to the last line, who *IS* going to do all of the required work?

Only someone for whom it's less work to build Python 2.8 than it is to
port their code to Python 3. In other words, some organization with a
megantic (that's one step below gigantic, you know [1]) Python
codebase, and some (but not heaps of) resources to put into it.
Personally, I don't see it happening; very little of the code required
will be backportable from Python 3 (in contrast to PEP 466 security
patches), so every bit of that work will be for the 2.x line only; and
any features added in 2.8 can't be used until you're prepared to drop
2.7 support. That means a fair amount of work *and* you have to drop
2.7 support. If you're going to do that, why not just port your code
to 3.x and be done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and
hours of dev time into a 2.8?

ChrisA

[1] Megantic is only +3/+3, but gigantic is 8/8. Look! :)
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=370794
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=195627

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#70219

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:

> If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and be
> done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev time
> into a 2.8?

Somewhat related. Only yesterday I ported/reimplemented a software
package to python3. On the finish line, I ran into a problem: xlwt
only supports 2.6, 2.7 and 3.3. My system has python3.2.

So I backtracked to python2.7.

So not only do we have a schism between python2 and python3 but there's
one between 3.0 and 3.3. I can't help but wonder if PEP 414 was a
mistake.

Serves me right for being an "early adopter."


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70221

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and be
>> done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev time
>> into a 2.8?
>
> Somewhat related. Only yesterday I ported/reimplemented a software
> package to python3. On the finish line, I ran into a problem: xlwt
> only supports 2.6, 2.7 and 3.3. My system has python3.2.
>
> So I backtracked to python2.7.
>
> So not only do we have a schism between python2 and python3 but there's
> one between 3.0 and 3.3. I can't help but wonder if PEP 414 was a
> mistake.
>
> Serves me right for being an "early adopter."

So get Python 3.3 for your system, then. It's not that hard. You might
need to build it from source (not hard at all), or grab packages from
a newer version of Debian/RHEL/etc (also not hard, although there
might be additional consequential package requirements). The two
should happily coexist.

Also, the EOL for Python 3.2 is way *way* nearer than EOL of the 2.x
line. If you declare that your package requires 2.6/2.7/3.3
(preferably also support 3.4), so be it. It won't be long before all
supported systems can get 3.3+, so that won't be a problem. PEP 414
was useful because we can confidently target a newer 3.3 and expect
that people will be able to get there before long.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70222

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:

> So get Python 3.3 for your system, then.

That'll have to wait till it's time for an OS overhaul. I don't do those
every year.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70224

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> So get Python 3.3 for your system, then.
>
> That'll have to wait till it's time for an OS overhaul. I don't do those
> every year.

What OS? Since getting 3.3 isn't just a matter of "grab the .msi/.dmg
file from python.org", I'm guessing it's neither Windows nor OS X, so
I'd guess you're most likely talking about Linux. On Linux, it's
pretty easy to build Python from source. Debian Wheezy ships Python
3.2, so with that distro you should be able to do this:

# apt-get build-dep python3

and it'll install everything you need to build Python 3.2 (and 3.3
needs the same packages). Then you just grab the source code and do
the classic configure and make.

Or if you don't want to build from source, you could get a package of
3.3 from somewhere. In the case of Debian, that would mean grabbing
the Python package from Jessie:

https://packages.debian.org/jessie/python3.3

I haven't tested, but that package will most likely install happily on
a Debian Wheezy. Chances are you can find an equivalent for other
Linuxes (I don't have much experience with rpm-based distros, but I'm
sure there's some equivalent of "apt-get build-dep"). For non-Linux
systems, I don't know how hard it is to get a newer Python, but it
seems highly unlikely that you're forced to wait for an OS upgrade.

Remember, there's nothing wrong with having lots of versions of Python
installed. The package manager might provide a couple (maybe 3.1 and
3.2), but having 3.3 installed won't break scripts that depend on 3.2
being there, unless you actually switch over what 'python3' does - and
even that's unlikely to break much, since most Linux distros are going
to be depending more on the 2.x version than the 3.x... and those that
depend on 3.x are sufficiently forward-looking to be shipping 3.3 or
even 3.4, so the point is moot.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70223

On 14/04/2014 14:51, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and be
>> done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev time
>> into a 2.8?

The people who haven't had enough time over the last eight years to plan 
their upgrade path to 3.x.  Eight years comes from the date of the first 
message here https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/ which was 
21/03/2006, so feel free to come up with a different answer for the time 
span.

>
> Somewhat related. Only yesterday I ported/reimplemented a software
> package to python3. On the finish line, I ran into a problem: xlwt
> only supports 2.6, 2.7 and 3.3. My system has python3.2.
>
> So I backtracked to python2.7.
>
> So not only do we have a schism between python2 and python3 but there's
> one between 3.0 and 3.3. I can't help but wonder if PEP 414 was a
> mistake.

I still believe that PEP 404 was the correct thing to do.  PEP 414 was a 
no brainer :)

>
> Serves me right for being an "early adopter."

No, serves the community right for not providing enough support to 
authors in getting their packages updated.

>
>
> Marko
>


-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70227

Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> On 14/04/2014 14:51, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and
>>> be done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev
>>> time into a 2.8?
>
> The people who haven't had enough time over the last eight years to
> plan their upgrade path to 3.x. Eight years comes from the date of the
> first message here https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/
> which was 21/03/2006, so feel free to come up with a different answer
> for the time span.

Would it help if we adopted a non-numeric name for this product to
support eXisting Python for those who were notified some years ago that
Python 2 would be superseded? How about Python XP?

I thought not ;-)

-- 
Pete Forman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70225

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> So not only do we have a schism between python2 and python3 but there's
>> one between 3.0 and 3.3. I can't help but wonder if PEP 414 was a
>> mistake.
>
>
> I still believe that PEP 404 was the correct thing to do.  PEP 414 was a no
> brainer :)

I'm pretty sure the 414 there wasn't a typo, since he's talking about
the schism between 3.0 and 3.3. But let's face it, there's a *lot* of
schism between there, and it's all the same sort of thing: code
written for 3.0 will usually run happily on 3.3, and code written to
take advantage of 3.3's features won't work on 3.0. That's kinda how
new versions work, yaknow...

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70226

I will most probably backport two quite large applications
to Py27 ("scientific data processing apps").
It's more a question of willingness, than a technical
difficulty. Then basta.
Note: cp1252 is good enough. (latin1/iso8859-1 not!).

jmf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70229

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Apr 14, 2014 11:46 AM, <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I will most probably backport two quite large applications
> to Py27 ("scientific data processing apps").

These applications are already on Python 3? Why do you want them on Python
2? Even the people talking about a 2.8 are only seeing it as an upgrade
path to Python 3.

> It's more a question of willingness, than a technical
> difficulty. Then basta.
> Note: cp1252 is good enough. (latin1/iso8859-1 not!).

Because cp1252 includes that holiest of holies, the Euro sign, I assume.

Point of curiosity: if the first 256 codepoints of Unicode happened to
correspond to cp1252 instead of Latin-1, would you still object to the FSR?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70257

Le lundi 14 avril 2014 20:59:37 UTC+2, Ian a écrit :
> On Apr 14, 2014 11:46 AM, <wxjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> 
> Point of curiosity: if the first 256 codepoints of Unicode happened to correspond to cp1252 instead of Latin-1, would you still object to the FSR?


Yes.

---

cp1252: I'm perfectly understanding, plenty of people are very happy with
that coding scheme.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70230

On 4/14/14 2:59 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Point of curiosity: if the first 256 codepoints of Unicode happened to
> correspond to cp1252 instead of Latin-1, would you still object to the FSR?

Many of us on the list would appreciate it if you didn't open that 
particular can of worms.  You are of course always welcome to write to 
JMF privately, although he has never responded to me over that channel.

-- 
Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70246

On 4/14/2014 9:51 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> If you're going to do that, why not just port your code to 3.x and be
>> done with it? Who has the resources to put hours and hours of dev time
>> into a 2.8?
>
> Somewhat related. Only yesterday I ported/reimplemented a software
> package to python3. On the finish line, I ran into a problem: xlwt
> only supports 2.6, 2.7 and 3.3. My system has python3.2.
>
> So I backtracked to python2.7.
>
> So not only do we have a schism between python2 and python3 but there's
> one between 3.0 and 3.3. I can't help but wonder if PEP 414 was a
> mistake.

The 'mistake' is your OS, whatever it is, not providing 3.3. It is 
already so old that it is off bugfix maintenance. Any decent system 
should have 3.4 available now.

In any case, I think PEP 393 (new unicode implementation) is reason 
enough to jump to 3.3.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70248

Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>:

> Any decent system should have 3.4 available now.

Really, now? Which system is that?


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70259

On 4/15/2014 1:03 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>:
>
>> Any decent system should have 3.4 available now.
>
> Really, now? Which system is that?

3.4.0 was released a month ago with Windows and Mac installers and 
source for everything else. I know Ubuntu was testing the release 
candidate so I presume it is or will very soon have 3.4 officially 
available. Since there was a six month series of alpha, beta, and 
candidate releases, with an approximate final release data, any 
distribution that wanted to be up to date also could be.

This is all quite aside from the fact that one should be able to unpack 
a tarball and 'make xxx'.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70269

Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> writes:

> 3.4.0 was released a month ago with Windows and Mac installers and
> source for everything else. I know Ubuntu was testing the release
> candidate so I presume it is or will very soon have 3.4 officially
> available. Since there was a six month series of alpha, beta, and
> candidate releases, with an approximate final release data, any
> distribution that wanted to be up to date also could be.

Those assertions assume that:

* operating systems have stable releases every few months; and

* they have a zero-length process to get a stable release of Python into
  the stable OS release; and

* the user is always running the latest stable OS version immediately
  after its release.

When, in reality, the OS team will need quite a long time to ensure the
stable Python release works smoothly with all of the rest of the OS; the
stable release will come some number of months after that assurance
process is complete; and the user will upgrade some wildly varying time
after the stable OS release is complete.

That reality means “any decent OS will have Python 3.4 today” rather
bold, only a month after its release, and eliminates just about all OSen
from “decent” category.

On the other hand, you might have meant “Python 3.4 is available *for*
any decent OS today”; this is a very different thing from the OS having
that version of Python.

-- 
 \             “We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one |
  `\         bitstream from another in order to figure out which rules |
_o__)               apply.” —Eben Moglen, _Anarchism Triumphant_, 1999 |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70275

----- Original Message -----

> From: Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
> To: python-list@python.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Martijn Faassen: The Call of Python 2.8
> 
> On 4/15/2014 1:03 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>  Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>:
>> 
>>>  Any decent system should have 3.4 available now.
>> 
>>  Really, now? Which system is that?
> 
> 3.4.0 was released a month ago with Windows and Mac installers and 
> source for everything else. I know Ubuntu was testing the release 
> candidate so I presume it is or will very soon have 3.4 officially 
> available. Since there was a six month series of alpha, beta, and 
> candidate releases, with an approximate final release data, any 
> distribution that wanted to be up to date also could be.
> 
> This is all quite aside from the fact that one should be able to unpack 
> a tarball and 'make xxx'.

True, but in Debian Linux (so probably also Linux) one needs to install some zlib packages and some other stuff (https related IIRC) before compiling Python (at least with 3.3). 

So glad that pip (and setuptools too?) is part of the standard library in Python 3.4 (the zlib error became apparent when installing pip)

Albert-Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70287

On 4/15/2014 1:21 PM, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:

>> This is all quite aside from the fact that one should be able to
>> unpack a tarball and 'make xxx'.
>
> True, but in Debian Linux (so probably also Linux) one needs to
> install some zlib packages and some other stuff (https related IIRC)
> before compiling Python (at least with 3.3).

On windows, I can compile Python without the 3rd party dependencies 
installed. (They are also mostly installed by one .bat file.) The 
compiler will report errors for what is missing, and the corresponding 
imports (like 'import zlib') from the missing dlls will fail, but 
python.exe is built and otherwise runs fine. Are things different on 
*nix -- all or nothing?

In any case, once the dependencies are installed, they should still be 
there if one upgrades with patch release.

> So glad that pip (and setuptools too?) is part of the standard
> library in Python 3.4 (the zlib error became apparent when installing
> pip)

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70291

On 4/15/2014 7:33 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> writes:
>
>> 3.4.0 was released a month ago with Windows and Mac installers and
>> source for everything else. I know Ubuntu was testing the release
>> candidate so I presume it is or will very soon have 3.4 officially
>> available. Since there was a six month series of alpha, beta, and
>> candidate releases, with an approximate final release data, any
>> distribution that wanted to be up to date also could be.
>
> Those assertions assume that:
>
> * operating systems have stable releases every few months; and
>
> * they have a zero-length process to get a stable release of Python into
>    the stable OS release; and
>
> * the user is always running the latest stable OS version immediately
>    after its release.

No, I was not talking about replacing the system python. Only about 
having a .rpm or .deb or whatever available to make an alternate 
install. My comments are a response to someone saying he could not use 
Python3 because his system only had ancient 3.2 available and he needed 
to use a module that requires 3.3. If he was telling the truth, this 
strikes me as ridiculous.

> When, in reality, the OS team will need quite a long time to ensure the
> stable Python release works smoothly with all of the rest of the OS;

For a standalone non-system install, I cannot imagine what you are 
talking about. CPython is primarily developed on Linux. It is continuous 
tested on multiple buildbots that include several *nix and in particular 
linux distributions (https://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/). I believe it 
more stable on linux than anything else, certainly more than on Windows. 
CPython x.y.0 is released after a month of candidate testing. When it is 
released, it definitely works on multiple linux distributions, or it 
would not be released.

I believe distutils has options to create some package manager bundles 
(.rpm, .deb?, ???) and that we once hosted such on the site on day 1, 
along with a windows binary. I believe we no longer do because linux 
distributions proliferated and said that they would rather host python 
bundles in their own package manager systems.


-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70299

On 15 April 2014 06:03, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>:
>
>> Any decent system should have 3.4 available now.
>
> Really, now? Which system is that?

Arch is on 3.4 *default*.

    $> python
    Python 3.4.0 (default, Mar 17 2014, 23:20:09)
    [...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web