Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

bpo-46376: Change PySequence_Check and PyMapping_Check to use tpflags #30600

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

bpo-46376: Change PySequence_Check and PyMapping_Check to use tpflags #30600

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

aviramha
Copy link

@aviramha aviramha commented Jan 14, 2022 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

@aviramha aviramha mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2022
Closed
@rhettinger
Copy link
Contributor

Added a Do Not Merge tag because this is a breaking change for very little benefit.

JelleZijlstra
JelleZijlstra reviewed Jan 19, 2022
View reviewed changes
Lib/sre_parse.py
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
"""Internal support module for sre"""

# XXX: show string offset and offending character for all errors

import collections.abc
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This may hurt startup performance, since collections.abc is a heavy module and re currently does not depend on it.

@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Jan 19, 2022

This is a breaking change that does not follow Python's Backwards Compatibility Policy. As such, it can't be merged to 3.11 (without a SC exception). It has also received only negative feedback from core devs.
With that, I'll close this PR. If you still want to push toward fixing this, the implementation will need to be different: let's continue discussion on the issue.

@encukou encukou closed this Jan 19, 2022
@aviramha
Copy link
Author

This is a breaking change that does not follow Python's Backwards Compatibility Policy. As such, it can't be merged to 3.11 (without a SC exception). It has also received only negative feedback from core devs.

With that, I'll close this PR. If you still want to push toward fixing this, the implementation will need to be different: let's continue discussion on the issue.

I agree. I waited for more feedback by core developers in the issue.

@aviramha aviramha mannequin mentioned this pull request Apr 16, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
awaiting review DO-NOT-MERGE
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@aviramha @rhettinger @encukou @JelleZijlstra @the-knights-who-say-ni @bedevere-bot