Python 2.4 Final Released

Eventh writes "The final release of Python 2.4 was just released. Python 2.4 is the result of almost 18 month's worth of work on top of Python 2.3. New features are, but not limited to, function decorators, generator expressions, a number of new module and more. Check out Andrew Kuchling's What's New In Python for a detailed view of some of the new features of Python 2.4. "

Comments

18 Months

[nijk]

It took them a while, but it's worth it. Here's some of the new features:

* multi-line imports - when using imports in the form from foo import bar, baz, bing, bang, you can surround the imported names with brackets, and they can be split across lines. This is part of PEP 328.
* Farewell to OverflowWarning - as documented in PEP 237, Python no longer generates OverflowWarnings.
* function/method decorators - function and method decorators, first described in PEP 318, have been added to the language, using 'pie-decorator' syntax. Decorators are on the line before the 'def', and prefixed with an '@' sign. (PEP 318)
* Assigning to None - the compiler now treats assigning to None as a SyntaxError.
* Failed import cleanup - when a module import failed, versions of Python prior to 2.4a2 would leave a broken module in sys.modules - subsequent attempts to import the failing module would silently succeed, but use the broken module object. The import machinery now removes the failing module from sys.modules if the import fails.
* The -m command line option - python -m modulename will find a module in the standard library, and invoke it. For example, python -m pdb is equivalent to python -m /usr/lib/python2.4/pdb.py

Re:Python is a pathetic language.

[tuffy]

I dare python lovers to write something like that in python in one line.

for f in glob.glob("/tmp/*").sorted(): print f

Though you will need to import glob in a seperate line. But I fail to see how doing trivial things trivially is a helpful measure of a language's usefulness.

Re:Writing extensions...

[imroy]

The Boost project has Boost.Python. I haven't used it yet, but the docs make it sound very interesting. It looks quite simple to write base classes in C++ and then subclass them in Python.

Re:Sets in Python

[tuffy]

Sets can operate on anything. But you need to pass in a list of those things to build a set out of, such as:

>>> s = sets.Set(["foo","bar"])
>>> s
Set(['foo', 'bar'])
>>> 'foo' in s
True

Re:OK Trolls...

[pclminion]

Do you really want to go through each line, scrolling all the way to the end because your language has significant whitespace?

There is absolutely nothing that says you can't break things across lines. In most cases you don't even need a backslash to escape the linebreak. TRY the damn thing before criticizing it.

Re:Writing extensions...

[William Stein]

One can write extensions in Pyrex, which is a language that is very similar to Python. Pyrex code is converted to C, which is ccompiled into an extension to Python. One can also access any C libraries from Pyrex.

Re:CommonLisp for the 21st century?!

[geg81]

Python looks NOTHING like common lisp.

Python is a lot like CommonLisp: dynamic typing, reflection, eval, lexical scoping, extensive iteration and looping constructs, strings-as-sequences, and on and on.

For once thing is the "big difference" you describe: you can't transparently process code as data. That means no MACROS, which is what makes Lisp so damn powerful.

Go back and read the original papers on hygienic macros: you don't need Lisp syntax or code-as-data in order to have a macro facility as powerful as Scheme's (and Scheme got by for many years without macros anyway). I wouldn't be surprised if Python at some point gets a hygienic macro facility. Furthermore, there is a separate data syntax for Python that takes source that looks very similar to Python code and represents it as a DOM tree.

How do you return an anonymous function from a function in Python?

In the obvious way:

A ``def'' form executed inside a function definition defines a local function that can be returned or passed around. Free variables used in the nested function can access the local variables of the function containing the def.

That part is actually more natural than doing the same in CommonLisp (Python, like Scheme, but unlike CommonLisp, does not have separate value and function slots on symbols).

How do you build a function at run time? It's not easy or obvious.

There are two things you could mean by that. The first is to build it from source or structure. You can do this:

exec "def c(x): return x*x*x"

The second is to build complex functions using functions that take functions as arguments. You do that the same way you do in CommonLisp, since Python supports the same primitives: lexical closures, dynamic typing, and functions that take functions as arguments.

I think people see "lambda" and they somehow think that Python has something to do with Lisp.

I think Lisp zealots incorrectly think nothing that isn't exactly Lisp could even come close. Python, in fact, is very close to Lisp; the two big differences are syntax and lack of macros. Lack of macros can be addressed, and there are separate Python-like syntactic representations of data.

Re:Is it just me?

[Jerf]

Or has python strayed from it's original philosophy of 'one best way to do it'?

To a degree, yes. Largely to the extent it has it is a result of backwards-compatibility; while the Python designers do not make the mistake of enshrining reverse compatibility above all else, they do try to avoid gratuitously compromising it.

As a result, as better ways to do things have emerged, sometime the old ways hang around and muss things up. However, for any given version there is always a "core" that you can stick to that is very close to "one best way to do it"... and despite what a first reading tells you, you really don't throw much of the language away.

For instance, while in modern Python you can say either

a = []
for i in range(5):
a.append(i*2)

or

a = [i*2 for i in range(5)]

the latter is the "one right way to do it". Few, if any, new additions truly leave you with two equally good choices.

(One of Guido's examples is the "lambda" statement, but a lot of people, including me, rather like not needing to replace

self.register("event", lambda event: self.keyPressed())

with

def handler(event):
self.keyPressed()
self.register("event", handler)

but hey, that's life. (While that isn't code for any GUI toolkit in particular that is a pattern common to all of them.))

By and large, none of these things have affected the difficulty of learning Python from scratch and using its libraries. It has affected the difficulty of reading other people's code, but I find the alternative, "keeping the language stagnant indefinately", completely unacceptable, and frankly, reading code is hard anyhow. (I was writing code for others long before I was reading other's code.)

In fact, given as that is the alternative, "keeping the language stagnant indefinately", while I concede it is somewhat sad that we can't jump to an optimal language immediately so that nobody ever has to learn anything past their first impression (not sarcastic, that would be the ideal), that doesn't seem to be working for folks. You might try LISP, though, I gather that hasn't changed syntax, much. (Though I also gather mature programs in that language tend to start looking like their own languages themselves, so that just may move the pain...)

Re:Supprised

[Junks Jerzey]

Can one tell me why I should learn python and not any other programming language anyway?

I expect this isn't the answer that true Python devotees would express, but here goes anyway: It's a very high-level, very dynamic, language that's reliably cross-platform.

"Very high-level" differentiates it from Java, which I see as more mid-level. It's also different than Perl 5, which is higher-level than Python in some ways, but convoluted and crusty in other ways (anything involving nested data structures, for example).

"Dynamic" means you can test code interactively, you don't a build process, you don't waste time enumerating things and creating redundant headers and so on.

"Reliably cross-platform" is the key. This is where Scheme and Lisp and Haskell fall down. Lisp has a standard definition, but the community is fractured by there not being a standard implementation. You can argue that diversity is good and all that, but it does tend to hurt overall. Python has a huge number of standard library modules as a result.