iSharkFly-Open
/
python-peps
mirror of https://github.com/python/peps.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

merged

This commit is contained in:
Armin Ronacher 2012-02-28 08:19:11 +00:00
parent 5a2d803bbd 8a61da282a
commit a71aa54d64
3 changed files with 491 additions and 167 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
pep-0410.txt
View File

@ -3,13 +3,20 @@ Title: Use decimal.Decimal type for timestamps
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@haypocalc.com>
Status: Draft
Status: Rejected
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 01-February-2012
Python-Version: 3.3
Rejection Notice
================
This PEP is rejected.
See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116837.html.
Abstract
========

562
pep-0413.txt
View File

@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ Resolution: TBD
Abstract
========
This PEP proposes the adoption of a new date-based versioning scheme for
the standard library (distinct from, but coupled to, the existing language
This PEP proposes the adoption of a separate versioning scheme for the
standard library (distinct from, but coupled to, the existing language
versioning scheme) that allows accelerated releases of the Python standard
library, while maintaining (or even slowing down) the current rate of
change in the core language definition.
@ -87,11 +87,11 @@ such a course of action is actually *necessary* (aside from, perhaps, making
the lives of the CPython core developers a little easier at the expense of
everyone else).
But, if we go back to the primary rationale for increasing the pace of change
(i.e. more timely support for web protocols and related technologies), we can
note that those only require *standard library* changes. That means many
(perhaps even most) of the negative effects on the wider community can be
avoided by explicitly limiting which parts of CPython are affected by the
However, if we go back to the primary rationale for increasing the pace of
change (i.e. more timely support for web protocols and related technologies),
we can note that those only require *standard library* changes. That means
many (perhaps even most) of the negative effects on the wider community can
be avoided by explicitly limiting which parts of CPython are affected by the
new release cycle, and allowing other parts to evolve at their current, more
sedate, pace.
@ -99,68 +99,128 @@ sedate, pace.
Proposal
========
This PEP proposes the addition of a new ``sys.stdlib_info`` attribute that
records a date based standard library version above and beyond the underlying
interpreter version::
This PEP proposes the introduction of a new kind of CPython release:
"standard library releases". As with PEP 407, this will give CPython 3 kinds
of release:
sys.stdlib_info(year=2012, month=8, micro=0, releaselevel='final', serial=0)
* Language release: "x.y.0"
* Maintenance release: "x.y.z" (where z > 0)
* Standard library release: "x.y (xy.z)" (where z > 0)
This information would also be included in the ``sys.version`` string::
Under this scheme, an unqualified version reference (such as "3.3") would
always refer to the most recent corresponding language or maintenance
release. It will never be used without qualification to refer to a standard
library release (at least, not by python-dev - obviously, we can only set an
example, not force the rest of the Python ecosystem to go along with it).
Python 3.3.0 (12.08.0, default:c1a07c8092f7+, Feb 17 2012, 23:03:41)
[GCC 4.6.1]
Language releases will continue as they are now, as new versions of the
Python language definition, along with a new version of the CPython
interpreter and the Python standard library. Accordingly, a language
release may contain any and all of the following changes:
When maintenance releases are created, *two* new versions of Python would
actually be published on python.org (using the first 3.3 maintenance release,
planned for February 2013 as an example)::
* new language syntax
* new standard library changes (see below)
* new deprecation warnings
* removal of previously deprecated features
* changes to the emitted bytecode
* changes to the AST
* any other significant changes to the compilation toolchain
* changes to the core interpreter eval loop
* binary incompatible changes to the C ABI (although the PEP 384 stable ABI
must still be preserved)
* bug fixes
3.3.1 + 12.08.1 # Maintenance release
3.3.1 + 13.02.0 # Standard library release
Maintenance releases will also continue as they do today, being strictly
limited to bug fixes for the corresponding language release. No new features
or radical internal changes are permitted.
A standard library release would just be the corresponding maintenance
release, with the following additional, backwards compatible changes:
The new standard library releases will occur in parallel with each
maintenance release and will be qualified with a new version identifier
documenting the standard library version. Standard library releases may
include the following changes:
* new features in pure Python modules
* new features in C extension modules (subject to PEP 399 compatibility
requirements)
* new features in language builtins (provided the C ABI remains unaffected)
* bug fixes from the corresponding maintenance release
Standard library version identifiers are constructed by combining the major
and minor version numbers for the Python language release into a single two
digit number and then appending a sequential standard library version
identifier.
Release Cycle
-------------
When maintenance releases are created, *two* new versions of Python would
actually be published on python.org (using the first 3.3 maintenance release,
planned for February 2013 as an example)::
3.3.1 # Maintenance release
3.3 (33.1) # Standard library release
A further 6 months later, the next 3.3 maintenance release would again be
accompanied by a new standard library release::
3.3.2 + 12.08.2 # Maintenance release
3.3.2 + 13.08.1 # Standard library release
3.3.2 # Maintenance release
3.3 (33.2) # Standard library release
Again, the standard library release would be binary compatible with the
previous language release, merely offering additional features at the
Python level.
Finally, 18 months after the release of 3.3, a new language release would
be made around the same time as the final 3.3 maintenance release::
be made around the same time as the final 3.3 maintenance and standard
library releases::
3.3.3 + 12.08.3 # Maintenance release
3.4.0 + 14.02.0 # Language release
Language releases would then contain all the features that are not
permitted in standard library releases:
* new language syntax
* new deprecation warnings
* removal of previously deprecated features
* changes to the emitted bytecode
* changes to the AST
* any other significant changes to the compilation toolchain
* changes to the core eval loop
* changes to the C ABI
3.3.3 # Maintenance release
3.3 (33.3) # Standard library release
3.4.0 # Language release
The 3.4 release cycle would then follow a similar pattern to that for 3.3::
3.4.1 + 14.02.1 # Maintenance release
3.4.1 + 14.08.0 # Standard library release
3.4.2 + 14.02.2 # Maintenance release
3.4.2 + 15.02.0 # Standard library release
3.4.3 + 14.02.3 # Maintenance release
3.5.0 + 15.08.0 # Language release
3.4.1 # Maintenance release
3.4 (34.1) # Standard library release
3.4.2 # Maintenance release
3.4 (34.2) # Standard library release
3.4.3 # Maintenance release
3.4 (34.3) # Standard library release
3.5.0 # Language release
Programmatic Version Identification
-----------------------------------
To expose the new version details programmatically, this PEP proposes the
addition of a new ``sys.stdlib_info`` attribute that records the new
standard library version above and beyond the underlying interpreter
version. Using the initial Python 3.3 release as an example::
sys.stdlib_info(python=33, version=0, releaselevel='final', serial=0)
This information would also be included in the ``sys.version`` string::
Python 3.3.0 (33.0, default, Feb 17 2012, 23:03:41)
[GCC 4.6.1]
Security Fixes and Other "Out of Cycle" Releases
------------------------------------------------
For maintenance releases the process of handling out-of-cycle releases (for
example, to fix a security issue or resolve a critical bug in a new release),
remains the same as it is now: the minor version number is incremented and a
new release is made incorporating the required bug fixes, as well as any
other bug fixes that have been committed since the previous release.
For standard library releases, the process is essentially the same, but the
corresponding "What's New?" document may require some tidying up for the
release (as the standard library release may incorporate new features,
not just bug fixes).
User Scenarios
@ -187,12 +247,12 @@ Novice user, downloading Python from python.org in March 2013
**Status quo:** must choose between 3.3 and 2.7
**This PEP:** must choose between 3.3 (13.02), 3.3 (12.08) and 2.7.
**This PEP:** must choose between 3.3 (33.1), 3.3 and 2.7.
**PEP 407:** must choose between 3.4, 3.3 (LTS) and 2.7.
**Verdict:** explaining the meaning of a Long Term Support release is about as
complicated as explaining the meaning of the proposed standard library
complicated as explaining the meaning of the proposed standard library release
version numbers. I call this a tie.
@ -202,16 +262,15 @@ Novice user, attempting to judge currency of third party documentation
**Status quo:** minor version differences indicate 18-24 months of
language evolution
**This PEP:** same as status quo for language core, or just compare the
standard library version numbers to get a rough time in months.
**This PEP:** same as status quo for language core, standard library version
numbers indicate 6 months of standard library evolution.
**PEP 407:** minor version differences indicate 18-24 months of language
evolution up to 3.3, then 6 months of language evolution thereafter.
**Verdict:** date based numbering schemes with regular release cycles are
a *much* better way to give novices a rough handle on the currency of
information. Since keeping the minor version implications the same is a gain
for *current* Python users, I'm calling this a win twice over for the schemes
**Verdict:** Since language changes and deprecations can have a much bigger
effect on the accuracy of third party documentation than the addition of new
features to the standard library, I'm calling this a win for the scheme
in this PEP.
@ -297,7 +356,7 @@ frequent occurrence.
doesn't currently spell out a specific development strategy. Assuming a
3.3 compatibility branch is adopted (as proposed in this PEP), then the
outcome would be much the same, but the version number signalling would be
slightly less clear (since you would have to look up to see if a particular
slightly less clear (since you would have to check to see if a particular
release was an LTS release or not).
**Verdict:** while not as clear cut as some previous scenarios, I'm still
@ -318,7 +377,7 @@ documentation, check against ``sys.version_info``
**This PEP:** look for "version added" or "version changed" markers in the
documentation. If written as a bare Python version, such as "3.3", check
against ``sys.version_info``. If qualified with a standard library version,
such as "3.3 (13.02)", check against ``sys.stdlib_info``.
such as "3.3 (33.1)", check against ``sys.stdlib_info``.
**PEP 407:** same as status quo
@ -353,6 +412,26 @@ on our own tracker). However, by including it in ``sys.version``, many
fault reports will already include it, and it is easy to request if needed.
CPython release managers, handling a security fix
-------------------------------------------------
**Status quo:** create a new maintenance release incorporating the security
fix and any other bug fixes under source control. Also create source releases
for any branches open solely for security fixes.
**This PEP:** same as the status quo for maintenance branches. Also create a
new standard library release (potentially incorporating new features along
with the security fix). For security branches, create source releases for
both the former maintenance branch and the standard library update branch.
**PEP 407:** same as the status quo for maintenance and security branches,
but handling security fixes for non-LTS releases is currently an open
question.
**Verdict:** until PEP 407 is updated to actually address this scenario, a
clear win for this PEP.
Effects
=======
@ -365,10 +444,6 @@ in a language release, each language release will be limited to 6 months
worth of standard library changes, as well as any changes associated with
new syntax.
If a release date slips by a month or two, the current proposal is to keep
the planned standard library version number rather than updating it to
reflect the actual release date.
Effect on workflow
------------------
@ -389,14 +464,15 @@ Otherwise it should be checked in directly to ``default``.
The "version added" and "version changed" markers for any changes made on
the ``3.3-compat`` branch would need to be flagged with both the language
version and the standard library version. For example: "3.3 (13.02)".
version and the standard library version. For example: "3.3 (33.1)".
Any changes made directly on the ``default`` branch would just be flagged
with "3.4" as usual.
The ``3.3-compat`` branch would be closed after the 3.3+13.08 release, as
the next release at that time will be a full language release and changes
(including standard library changes) should be marked accordingly.
The ``3.3-compat`` branch would be closed to normal development at the
same time as the ``3.3`` maintenance branch. The ``3.3-compat`` branch would
remain open for security fixes for the same period of time as the ``3.3``
maintenance branch.
Effect on bugfix cycle
@ -407,14 +483,14 @@ workflow for new features - there is one additional branch to pass through
before the change reaches the ``default`` branch.
If critical bugs are found in a maintenance release, then new maintenance and
standard library releases will be created to resolve the problem. The micro
release number will be incremented for both the language version and the
standard library version.
standard library releases will be created to resolve the problem. The final
part of the version number will be incremented for both the language version
and the standard library version.
If critical bugs are found in a standard library release that do not affect
the associated maintenance release, then only a new standard library release
will be created and only the standard library version's micro release number
will be incremented.
will be created and only the standard library's version number will be
incremented.
Note that in these circumstances, the standard library release *may* include
additional features, rather than just containing the bug fix. It is
@ -443,8 +519,8 @@ past, I believe perceptions of language stability would also fall (whether
such opinions were justified or not).
I believe isolating the increased pace of change to the standard library,
and clearly delineating it with a separate date-based version number will
greatly reassure the rest of the community that no, we're not suddenly
and clearly delineating it with a separate version number will greatly
reassure the rest of the community that no, we're not suddenly
asking them to triple their own rate of development. Instead, we're merely
going to ship standard library updates for the next language release in
6-monthly installments rather than delaying them all until the next language
@ -479,8 +555,9 @@ standard library releases and language releases. So, during the 3.3 release
cycle, we would see:
* What's New in Python 3.3?
* What's New in Python 3.3 (13.02)?
* What's New in Python 3.3 (13.08)?
* What's New in the Python Standard Library 33.1?
* What's New in the Python Standard Library 33.2?
* What's New in the Python Standard Library 33.3?
And then finally, we would see the next language release:
@ -502,127 +579,222 @@ help to some degree, it would be good to eliminate the problem entirely.
One suggestion from Barry Warsaw is to adopt a non-conflicting
separate-files-per-change approach, similar to that used by Twisted [2_].
For this PEP, one possible layout for such an approach (to be adopted
following the initial release of 3.3.0+12.8.0 that will use the current NEWS
process) might look like::
Given that the current manually updated NEWS file will be used for the 3.3.0
release, one possible layout for such an approach might look like::
Misc/
news_entries/
3.3.1/ # Maintenance branch changes
builtins/
<files for builtin changes>
extensions/
<files for extension module changes>
library/
<files for pure Python module changes>
documentation/
<files for documentation changes>
tests/
<files for testing changes>
3.4.0/ # default branch changes
language/ # Only exists for "x.y.0"
<files for core language changes>
builtins/
<files for builtin changes>
extensions/
<files for extension module changes>
library/
<files for pure Python module changes>
documentation/
<files for documentation changes>
tests/
<files for testing changes>
13.02.0/ # 3.3 compatibility branch changes
builtins/
<files for builtin changes>
extensions/
<files for extension module changes>
library/
<files for pure Python module changes>
documentation/
<files for documentation changes>
tests/
<files for testing changes>
NEWS # Now autogenerated from news_entries
news_entries/
3.3/
NEWS # Original 3.3 NEWS file
maint.1/ # Maintenance branch changes
core/
<news entries>
builtins/
<news entries>
extensions/
<news entries>
library/
<news entries>
documentation/
<news entries>
tests/
<news entries>
compat.1/ # Compatibility branch changes
builtins/
<news entries>
extensions/
<news entries>
library/
<news entries>
documentation/
<news entries>
tests/
<news entries>
# Add maint.2, compat.2 etc as releases are made
3.4/
core/
<news entries>
builtins/
<news entries>
extensions/
<news entries>
library/
<news entries>
documentation/
<news entries>
tests/
<news entries>
# Add maint.1, compat.1 etc as releases are made
Putting the version information in the directory heirarchy isn't strictly
necessary (since the NEWS file generator could figure out from the version
history), but does make it easier for *humans* to keep the different versions
in order.
Other layouts are obviously also possible (for example, having separate "3.3"
and "3.4" directories to group entries for each language version and the
associated maintenance and standard library releases).
Other benefits of reduced version coupling
==========================================
Option: Slowing down the language release cycle
===============================================
Slowing down the language release cycle
---------------------------------------
The current release cycle is a compromise between the desire for stability
in the core language definition and C extension ABI, and the desire to get
new feature (most notably standard library updates) into users hands quickly.
new features (most notably standard library updates) into user's hands more
quickly.
With the standard library release cycle decoupled (to some degree) from that
of the core language definition, it provides an opportunity to actually
*slow down* the rate of change in the language definition. The language
moratorium for Python 3.2 effectively slowed that cycle down to *more than 3
years* (3.1: June 2009, 3.3: August 2012) without causing any major
complaints.
problems or complaints.
The NEWS file management scheme described above is actually designed to
allow us the flexibility to slow down language releases at the same time
as standard library releases become more frequent.
As simple example, if a full two years was allowed between 3.3 and 3.4,
the 3.3 release cycle would be up looking like::
As a simple example, if a full two years was allowed between 3.3 and 3.4,
the 3.3 release cycle would end up looking like::
3.2.4 # Maintenance release
3.3.0 + 12.08.0 # Language release
3.3.0 # Language release
3.3.1 + 12.08.1 # Maintenance release
3.3.1 + 13.02.0 # Standard library release
3.3.1 # Maintenance release
3.3 (33.1) # Standard library release
3.3.2 + 12.08.2 # Maintenance release
3.3.2 + 13.08.1 # Standard library release
3.3.2 # Maintenance release
3.3 (33.2) # Standard library release
3.3.3 + 12.08.3 # Maintenance release
3.3.3 + 14.02.1 # Standard library release
3.3.3 # Maintenance release
3.3 (33.3) # Standard library release
3.3.4 + 12.08.4 # Maintenance release
3.4.0 + 14.08.0 # Language release
3.3.4 # Maintenance release
3.3 (33.4) # Standard library release
3.4.0 # Language release
The elegance of the proposed NEWS entry layout is that this decision
wouldn't need to be made until after the 13.08 standard library release. At
that point, the ``3.3-compat`` branch could be kept open (thus adding
another standard library release to the cycle), or else it could be closed,
committing to the next release being a full language release. The choice
between another standard library release or a full language release would
then be available every 6 months after that.
The elegance of the proposed branch structure and NEWS entry layout is that
this decision wouldn't really need to be made until shortly before the planned
3.4 release date. At that point, the decision could be made to postpone the
3.4 release and keep the ``3.3`` and ``3.3-compat`` branches open after the
3.3.3 maintenance release and the 3.3 (33.3) standard library release, thus
adding another standard library release to the cycle. The choice between
another standard library release or a full language release would then be
available every 6 months after that.
Future: Further increasing the pace of standard library development
===================================================================
Further increasing the pace of standard library development
-----------------------------------------------------------
A further benefit of the scheme proposed in this PEP is that it almost
*fully* decouples the language release cycle from the standard library
release cycle. The standard library could be updated every 3 months, or
even once a month, without having any flow on effects on the language
version numbering or the perceived stability of the core language.
As noted in the previous section, one benefit of the scheme proposed in this
PEP is that it largely decouples the language release cycle from the
standard library release cycle. The standard library could be updated every
3 months, or even once a month, without having any flow on effects on the
language version numbering or the perceived stability of the core language.
While that pace of development isn't practical as long as the binary
installer creation for Windows and Mac OS X involves several manual steps and
for as long as we don't have separate "<branch>-release" trees that only
receive versions that have been marked as good by the stable buildbots,
it's a useful criterion to keep in mind: what if we want to make standard
library releases even *faster* than every 6 months?
installer creation for Windows and Mac OS X involves several manual steps
(including manual testing) and for as long as we don't have separate
"<branch>-release" trees that only receive versions that have been marked as
good by the stable buildbots, it's still a useful criterion to keep in mind
when considering proposed new versioning schemes: what if we eventually want
to make standard library releases even *faster* than every 6 months?
If the practical issues were ever resolved, then the separate date-based
versioning scheme in this PEP could handle it. The approach proposed in
PEP 407 could not.
If the practical issues were ever resolved, then the separate standard
library versioning scheme in this PEP could handle it. The tagged version
number approach proposed in PEP 407 could not (at least, not without a lot
of user confusion and uncertainty).
Other Questions
===============
Why not use the major version number?
-------------------------------------
The simplest and most logical solution would actually be to map the
major.minor.micro version numbers to the language version, stdlib version
and maintenance release version respectively.
Instead of releasing Python 3.3.0, we would instead release Python 4.0.0
and the release cycle would look like::
4.0.0 # Language release
4.0.1 # Maintenance release
4.1.0 # Standard library release
4.0.2 # Maintenance release
4.2.0 # Standard library release
4.0.3 # Maintenance release
4.3.0 # Standard library release
5.0.0 # Language release
However, the ongoing pain of the Python 2 -> Python 3 transition (and
associated workarounds like the ``python3`` and ``python2`` symlinks to
refer directly to the desired release series) means that this simple option
isn't viable for historical reasons.
One way that this simple approach *could* be made to work is to merge the
current major and minor version numbers directly into a 2-digit major
version number::
33.0.0 # Language release
33.0.1 # Maintenance release
33.1.0 # Standard library release
33.0.2 # Maintenance release
33.2.0 # Standard library release
33.0.3 # Maintenance release
33.3.0 # Standard library release
34.0.0 # Language release
Why not use a four part version number?
---------------------------------------
Another simple versioning scheme would just add a "standard library" version
into the existing versioning scheme::
3.3.0.0 # Language release
3.3.0.1 # Maintenance release
3.3.1.0 # Standard library release
3.3.0.2 # Maintenance release
3.3.2.0 # Standard library release
3.3.0.3 # Maintenance release
3.3.3.0 # Standard library release
3.4.0.0 # Language release
However, this scheme isn't viable due to backwards compatibility constraints
on the ``sys.version_info`` structure.
Why not use a date-based versioning scheme?
-------------------------------------------
Earlier versions of this PEP proposed a date-based versioning scheme for
the standard library. However, such a scheme made it very difficult to
handle out-of-cycle releases to fix security issues and other critical
bugs in standard library releases, as it required the following steps:
1. Change the release version number to the date of the current month.
2. Update the What's New, NEWS and documentation to refer to the new release
number.
3. Make the new release.
With the sequential scheme now proposed, such releases should at most require
a little tidying up of the What's New document before making the release.
Why isn't PEP 384 enough?
=========================
-------------------------
PEP 384 introduced the notion of a "Stable ABI" for CPython, a limited
subset of the full C ABI that is guaranteed to remain stable. Extensions
@ -634,25 +806,85 @@ closely to a specific version of CPython. For existing modules, however,
migrating to the stable ABI can involve quite a lot of work (especially for
extension modules that define a lot of classes). With limited development
resources available, any time spent on such a change is time that could
otherwise have been spent working on features that are offer more direct
benefits to end users.
otherwise have been spent working on features that offer more direct benefits
to end users.
There are also other benefits to separate versioning (as described above)
that are not directly related to the question of binary compatibility with
third party C extensions.
Why no binary compatible additions to the C ABI in standard library releases?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a case to be made that *additions* to the CPython C ABI could
reasonably be permitted in standard library releases. This would give C
extension authors the same freedom as any other package or module author
to depend either on a particular language version or on a standard library
version.
The PEP currently associates the interpreter version with the language
version, and therefore limits major interpreter changes (including C ABI
additions) to the language releases.
An alternative, internally consistent, approach would be to link the
interpreter version with the standard library version, with only changes that
may affect backwards compatibility limited to language releases.
Under such a scheme, the following changes would be acceptable in standard
library releases:
* Standard library updates
* new features in pure Python modules
* new features in C extension modules (subject to PEP 399 compatibility
requirements)
* new features in language builtins
* Interpreter implementation updates
* binary compatible additions to the C ABI
* changes to the compilation toolchain that do not affect the AST or alter
the bytecode magic number
* changes to the core interpreter eval loop
* bug fixes from the corresponding maintenance release
And the following changes would be acceptable in language releases:
* new language syntax
* any updates acceptable in a standard library release
* new deprecation warnings
* removal of previously deprecated features
* changes to the AST
* changes to the emitted bytecode that require altering the magic number
* binary incompatible changes to the C ABI (although the PEP 384 stable ABI
must still be preserved)
While such an approach could probably be made to work, there does not appear
to be a compelling justification for it, and the approach currently described
in the PEP is simpler and easier to explain.
Why not separate out the standard library entirely?
===================================================
---------------------------------------------------
Because it's a lot of work for next to no pay-off. CPython without the
standard library is useless (the build chain won't even run, let alone the
test suite). You can't create a standalone pure Python standard library,
because too many "modules" are actually tightly linked in to the internal
details of their respective interpreters (e.g. ``weakref``, ``gc``, ``sys``,
``inspect``, ``ast``).
A concept that is occasionally discussed is the idea of making the standard
library truly independent from the CPython reference implementation.
Creating a separate development branch that is kept compatible with the
previous feature release, and making releases from that branch that are
flagged with a separate date-based version number should provide most of
the benefits of a separate standard library repository with only a fraction
of the pain.
My personal opinion is that actually making such a change would involve a
lot of work for next to no pay-off. CPython without the standard library is
useless (the build chain won't even run, let alone the test suite). You also
can't create a standalone pure Python standard library either, because too
many "standard library modules" are actually tightly linked in to the
internal details of their respective interpreters (for example, the builtins,
``weakref``, ``gc``, ``sys``, ``inspect``, ``ast``).
Creating a separate CPython development branch that is kept compatible with
the previous language release, and making releases from that branch that are
identified with a separate standard library version number should provide
most of the benefits of a separate standard library repository with only a
fraction of the pain.
Acknowledgements

85
pep-0415.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
PEP: 415
Title: Implementing PEP 409 differently
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Benjamin Peterson <benjamin@python.org>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 26-Feb-2012
Post-History: 26-Feb-2012
Abstract
========
PEP 409 allows PEP 3134 exception contexts and causes to be suppressed when the
exception is printed. This is done using the ``raise exc from None``
syntax. This PEP proposes to implement context and cause suppression
differently.
Rationale
=========
PEP 409 changes ``__cause__`` to be ``Ellipsis`` by default. Then if
``__cause__`` is set to ``None`` by ``raise exc from None``, no context or cause
will be printed should the exception be uncaught.
The main problem with this scheme is it complicates the role of
``__cause__``. ``__cause__`` should indicate the cause of the exception not
whether ``__context__`` should be printed or not. This use of ``__cause__`` is
also not easily extended in the future. For example, we may someday want to
allow the programmer to select which of ``__context__`` and ``__cause__`` will
be printed. The PEP 409 implementation is not amenable to this.
The use of ``Ellipsis`` is a hack. Before PEP 409, ``Ellipsis`` was used
exclusively in extended slicing. Extended slicing has nothing to do with
exceptions, so it's not clear to someone inspecting an exception object why
``__cause__`` should be set to ``Ellipsis``. Using ``Ellipsis`` by default for
``__cause__`` makes it asymmetrical with ``__context__``.
Proposal
========
A new attribute on ``BaseException``, ``__suppress_context__``, will
be introduced. The ``raise exc from cause`` syntax will set
``exc.__suppress_context__`` to ``True``. Exception printing code will
check for that attribute to determine whether context and cause will
be printed. ``__cause__`` will return to its original purpose and
values.
There is precedence for ``__suppress_context__`` with the
``print_line_and_file`` exception attribute.
To summarize, ``raise exc from cause`` will be equivalent to::
exc.__cause__ = cause
exc.__suppress_context__ = True
raise exc
Patches
=======
There is a patch on `Issue 14133`_.
References
==========
.. _issue 14133:
http://bugs.python.org/issue6210
Copyright
=========
This document has been placed in the public domain.
..
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
coding: utf-8
End: