FAQ

[pypy-commit] extradoc extradoc: status update about py3k

Antocuni
Feb 16, 2012 at 9:48 am
Author: Antonio Cuni <anto.cuni at gmail.com>
Branch: extradoc
Changeset: r4087:a9add862b58c
Date: 2012-02-16 10:48 +0100
http://bitbucket.org/pypy/extradoc/changeset/a9add862b58c/

Log: status update about py3k

diff --git a/blog/draft/py3k-status-update-1.rst b/blog/draft/py3k-status-update-1.rst
new file mode 100644
--- /dev/null
+++ b/blog/draft/py3k-status-update-1.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+Hello,
+
+thank to all the people who donated_ to the `py3k proposal`_, we managed to
+collect enough money to start to work on the first step. This is a quick
+summary of what I did since I began working on this.
+
+First of all, many thanks to Amaury Forgeot d'Arc, who started the `py3k
+branch`_ months ago, and already implemented lots of features including
+e.g. switching to "unicode everywhere" and the int/long unification, making my
+job considerably easier :-),
+
+I started to work on the branch at the last `Leysin sprint`_ toghether with
+Romain Guillebert, where we worked on various syntactical changes such as
+extended tuple unpacking and keyword-only arguments. Working on such features
+is a good way to learn about a lot of the layers which the PyPy Python
+interpreter is composed of, because often you have to touch the tokenizer, the
+parser, the ast builder, the compiler and finally the interpreter.
+
+Then I worked on improving our test machinery in various way, e.g. by
+optimizing the initialization phase of the object space created by tests,
+which considerably speeds up small test runs, and adding the possibility to
+automatically run our tests against CPython 3, to ensure that what we are not
+trying to fix a test which is meant to fail :-). I also setup our buildbot to
+run the `py3k tests nightly`_, so that we can have an up to date overview of
+what is left to do.
+
+Finally I started to look at all the tests in the interpreter/ directory,
+trying to unmangle the mess of failing tests. Lots of tests were failing
+because of simple syntax errors (e.g., by using the no longer valid ``except
+Exception, e`` syntax or the old ``print`` statement), others for slightly
+more complex reasons like ``unicode`` vs ``bytes`` or the now gone int/long
+distinction. Others were failing simply because they relied on new features,
+such as the new `lexical exception handlers`_.
+
+To give some numbers, at some point in january we had 1621 failing tests in
+the branch, while today we are `under 1000`_ (to be exact: 999, and this is why
+I've waited until today to post the status update :-)).
+
+Before ending this blog post, I would like to thank once again all the people
+who donated to PyPy, who let me to do this wonderful job. That's all for now,
+I'll post more updates soon.
+
+cheers,
+Antonio
+
+.. _donated: http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2012/01/py3k-and-numpy-first-stage-thanks-to.html
+.. _`py3k proposal`: http://pypy.org/py3donate.html
+.. _`Leysin sprint`: http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2011/12/leysin-winter-sprint.html
+.. _`py3k tests nightly`: http://buildbot.pypy.org/summary?branch=py3k
+.. _`lexical exception handlers`: http://bugs.python.org/issue3021
+.. _`under 1000`: http://buildbot.pypy.org/summary?category=linux32&branch=py3k&recentrevR508:c1756f5aa63e
+
+
reply

Search Discussions

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 1 of 1 | next ›

1 user in discussion

Antocuni: 1 post