209 lines
8.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
209 lines
8.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
PEP: 434
|
||
Title: IDLE Enhancement Exception for All Branches
|
||
Version: $Revision$
|
||
Last-Modified: $Date$
|
||
Author: Todd Rovito <rovitotv@gmail.com>,
|
||
Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
|
||
BDFL-Delegate: Nick Coghlan
|
||
Status: Active
|
||
Type: Informational
|
||
Content-Type: text/x-rst
|
||
Created: 16-Feb-2013
|
||
Post-History: 16-Feb-2013,
|
||
03-Mar-2013,
|
||
21-Mar-2013,
|
||
30-Mar-2013
|
||
Resolution: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-March/125003.html
|
||
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
========
|
||
|
||
Most CPython tracker issues are classified as behavior or enhancement.
|
||
Most behavior patches are backported to branches for existing
|
||
versions. Enhancement patches are restricted to the default branch
|
||
that becomes the next Python version.
|
||
|
||
This PEP proposes that the restriction on applying enhancements be
|
||
relaxed for IDLE code, residing in .../Lib/idlelib/. In practice,
|
||
this would mean that IDLE developers would not have to classify or
|
||
agree on the classification of a patch but could instead focus on what
|
||
is best for IDLE users and future IDLE development. It would also
|
||
mean that IDLE patches would not necessarily have to be split into
|
||
'bugfix' changes and enhancement changes.
|
||
|
||
The PEP would apply to changes in existing features and addition of
|
||
small features, such as would require a new menu entry, but not
|
||
necessarily to possible major re-writes such as switching to themed
|
||
widgets or tabbed windows.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Motivation
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
This PEP was prompted by controversy on both the tracker and pydev
|
||
list over adding Cut, Copy, and Paste to right-click context menus
|
||
(Issue 1207589, opened in 2005 [1]_; pydev thread [2]_). The features
|
||
were available as keyboard shortcuts but not on the context menu. It
|
||
is standard, at least on Windows, that they should be when applicable
|
||
(a read-only window would only have Copy), so users do not have to
|
||
shift to the keyboard after selecting text for cutting or copying or a
|
||
slice point for pasting. The context menu was not documented until 10
|
||
days before the new options were added (Issue 10405 [5]_).
|
||
|
||
Normally, behavior is called a bug if it conflicts with documentation
|
||
judged to be correct. But if there is no doc, what is the standard?
|
||
If the code is its own documentation, most IDLE issues on the tracker
|
||
are enhancement issues. If we substitute reasonable user expectation,
|
||
(which can, of course, be its own subject of disagreement), many more
|
||
issues are behavior issues.
|
||
|
||
For context menus, people disagreed on the status of the additions --
|
||
bugfix or enhancement. Even people who called it an enhancement
|
||
disagreed as to whether the patch should be backported. This PEP
|
||
proposes to make the status disagreement irrelevant by explicitly
|
||
allowing more liberal backporting than for other stdlib modules.
|
||
|
||
Python does have many advanced features yet Python is well known for
|
||
being an easy computer language for beginners [3]_. A major Python
|
||
philosophy is "batteries included" which is best demonstrated in
|
||
Python's standard library with many modules that are not typically
|
||
included with other programming languages [4]_. IDLE is an important
|
||
"battery" in the Python toolbox because it allows a beginner to get
|
||
started quickly without downloading and configuring a third party IDE.
|
||
IDLE represents a commitment by the Python community to encouage the
|
||
use of Python as a teaching language both inside and outside of formal
|
||
educational settings. The recommended teaching experience is to have
|
||
a learner start with IDLE. This PEP and the work that it will enable
|
||
will allow the Python community to make that learner's experience with
|
||
IDLE awesome by making IDLE a simple tool for beginners to get started
|
||
with Python.
|
||
|
||
Rationale
|
||
=========
|
||
|
||
People primarily use IDLE by running the graphical user interface
|
||
(GUI) application, rather than by directly importing the effectively
|
||
private (undocumented) implementation modules in idlelib. Whether
|
||
they use the shell, the editor, or both, we believe they will benefit
|
||
more from consistency across the latest releases of current Python
|
||
versions than from consistency within the bugfix releases for one
|
||
Python version. This is especially true when existing behavior is
|
||
clearly unsatisfactory.
|
||
|
||
When people use the standard interpreter, the OS-provided frame works
|
||
the same for all Python versions. If, for instance, Microsoft were to
|
||
upgrade the Command Prompt GUI, the improvements would be present
|
||
regardless of which Python were running within it. Similarly, if one
|
||
edits Python code with editor X, behaviors such as the right-click
|
||
context menu and the search-replace box do not depend on the version
|
||
of Python being edited or even the language being edited.
|
||
|
||
The benefit for IDLE developers is mixed. On the one hand, testing
|
||
more versions and possibly having to adjust a patch, especially for
|
||
2.7, is more work. (There is, of course, the option on not
|
||
backporting everything. For issue 12510, some changes to calltips for
|
||
classes were not included in the 2.7 patch because of issues with
|
||
old-style classes [6]_.) On the other hand, bike-shedding can be an
|
||
energy drain. If the obvious fix for a bug looks like an enhancement,
|
||
writing a separate bugfix-only patch is more work. And making the
|
||
code diverge between versions makes future multi-version patches more
|
||
difficult.
|
||
|
||
These issue are illustrated by the search-and-replace dialog box. It
|
||
used to raise an exception for certain user entries [7]_. The
|
||
uncaught exception caused IDLE to exit. At least on Windows, the exit
|
||
was silent (no visible traceback) and looked like a crash if IDLE was
|
||
started normally, from an icon.
|
||
|
||
Was this a bug? IDLE Help (on the current Help submenu) just says
|
||
"Replace... Open a search-and-replace dialog box", and a box *was*
|
||
opened. It is not, in general, a bug for a library method to raise an
|
||
exception. And it is not, in general, a bug for a library method to
|
||
ignore an exception raised by functions it calls. So if we were to
|
||
adopt the 'code = doc' philosophy in the absence of detailed docs, one
|
||
might say 'No'.
|
||
|
||
However, IDLE exiting when it does not need to is definitely
|
||
obnoxious. So four of us agreed that it should be prevented. But
|
||
there was still the question of what to do instead? Catch the
|
||
exception? Just not raise the exception? Beep? Display an error
|
||
message box? Or try to do something useful with the user's entry?
|
||
Would replacing a 'crash' with useful behavior be an enhancement,
|
||
limited to future Python releases? Should IDLE developers have to ask
|
||
that?
|
||
|
||
|
||
Backwards Compatibility
|
||
=======================
|
||
|
||
For IDLE, there are three types of users who might be concerned about
|
||
back compatibility. First are people who run IDLE as an application.
|
||
We have already discussed them above.
|
||
|
||
Second are people who import one of the idlelib modules. As far as we
|
||
know, this is only done to start the IDLE application, and we do not
|
||
propose breaking such use. Otherwise, the modules are undocumented
|
||
and effectively private implementations. If an IDLE module were
|
||
defined as public, documented, and perhaps moved to the tkinter
|
||
package, it would then follow the normal rules. (Documenting the
|
||
private interfaces for the benefit of people working on the IDLE code
|
||
is a separate issue.)
|
||
|
||
Third are people who write IDLE extensions. The guaranteed extension
|
||
interface is given in idlelib/extension.txt. This should be respected
|
||
at least in existing versions, and not frivolously changed in future
|
||
versions. But there is a warning that "The extension cannot assume
|
||
much about this [EditorWindow] argument." This guarantee should
|
||
rarely be an issue with patches, and the issue is not specific to
|
||
'enhancement' versus 'bugfix' patches.
|
||
|
||
As is happens, after the context menu patch was applied, it came up
|
||
that extensions that added items to the context menu (rare) would be
|
||
broken because the patch a) added a new item to standard rmenu_specs
|
||
and b) expected every rmenu_spec to be lengthened. It is not clear
|
||
whether this violates the guarantee, but there is a second patch that
|
||
fixes assumption b). It should be applied when it is clear that the
|
||
first patch will not have to be reverted.
|
||
|
||
References
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
.. [1] IDLE: Right Click Context Menu, Foord, Michael
|
||
(http://bugs.python.org/issue1207589)
|
||
|
||
.. [2] Cut/Copy/Paste items in IDLE right click context menu
|
||
(https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-November/122514.html)
|
||
|
||
.. [3] Getting Started with Python
|
||
(http://www.python.org/about/gettingstarted/)
|
||
|
||
.. [4] Batteries Included
|
||
(http://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/stdlib.html#batteries-included)
|
||
|
||
.. [5] IDLE breakpoint facility undocumented, Deily, Ned
|
||
(http://bugs.python.org/issue10405)
|
||
|
||
.. [6] IDLE: calltips mishandle raw strings and other examples,
|
||
Reedy, Terry (http://bugs.python.org/issue12510)
|
||
|
||
.. [7] IDLE: replace ending with '\' causes crash, Reedy, Terry
|
||
(http://bugs.python.org/issue13052)
|
||
|
||
|
||
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:
|