forked from python/peps
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
/
pep-0236.txt
373 lines (258 loc) · 13.6 KB
/
pep-0236.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
PEP: 236
Title: Back to the __future__
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Tim Peters <[email protected]>
Status: Final
Type: Standards Track
Created: 26-Feb-2001
Python-Version: 2.1
Post-History: 26-Feb-2001
Motivation
From time to time, Python makes an incompatible change to the
advertised semantics of core language constructs, or changes their
accidental (implementation-dependent) behavior in some way. While this
is never done capriciously, and is always done with the aim of
improving the language over the long term, over the short term it's
contentious and disrupting.
PEP 5, Guidelines for Language Evolution[1] suggests ways to ease
the pain, and this PEP introduces some machinery in support of that.
PEP 227, Statically Nested Scopes[2] is the first application, and
will be used as an example here.
Intent
[Note: This is policy, and so should eventually move into PEP 5 [1]]
When an incompatible change to core language syntax or semantics is
being made:
1. The release C that introduces the change does not change the
syntax or semantics by default.
2. A future release R is identified in which the new syntax or semantics
will be enforced.
3. The mechanisms described in PEP 3, Warning Framework[3] are
used to generate warnings, whenever possible, about constructs
or operations whose meaning may[4] change in release R.
4. The new future_statement (see below) can be explicitly included in a
module M to request that the code in module M use the new syntax or
semantics in the current release C.
So old code continues to work by default, for at least one release,
although it may start to generate new warning messages. Migration to
the new syntax or semantics can proceed during that time, using the
future_statement to make modules containing it act as if the new syntax
or semantics were already being enforced.
Note that there is no need to involve the future_statement machinery
in new features unless they can break existing code; fully backward-
compatible additions can-- and should --be introduced without a
corresponding future_statement.
Syntax
A future_statement is simply a from/import statement using the reserved
module name __future__:
future_statement: "from" "__future__" "import" feature ["as" name]
("," feature ["as" name])*
feature: identifier
name: identifier
In addition, all future_statments must appear near the top of the
module. The only lines that can appear before a future_statement are:
The module docstring (if any).
Comments.
Blank lines.
Other future_statements.
Example:
"""This is a module docstring."""
# This is a comment, preceded by a blank line and followed by
# a future_statement.
from __future__ import nested_scopes
from math import sin
from __future__ import alabaster_weenoblobs # compile-time error!
# That was an error because preceded by a non-future_statement.
Semantics
A future_statement is recognized and treated specially at compile time:
changes to the semantics of core constructs are often implemented by
generating different code. It may even be the case that a new feature
introduces new incompatible syntax (such as a new reserved word), in
which case the compiler may need to parse the module differently. Such
decisions cannot be pushed off until runtime.
For any given release, the compiler knows which feature names have been
defined, and raises a compile-time error if a future_statement contains
a feature not known to it[5].
The direct runtime semantics are the same as for any import statement:
there is a standard module __future__.py, described later, and it will
be imported in the usual way at the time the future_statement is
executed.
The *interesting* runtime semantics depend on the specific feature(s)
"imported" by the future_statement(s) appearing in the module.
Note that there is nothing special about the statement:
import __future__ [as name]
That is not a future_statement; it's an ordinary import statement, with
no special semantics or syntax restrictions.
Example
Consider this code, in file scope.py:
x = 42
def f():
x = 666
def g():
print "x is", x
g()
f()
Under 2.0, it prints:
x is 42
Nested scopes[2] are being introduced in 2.1. But under 2.1, it still
prints
x is 42
and also generates a warning.
In 2.2, and also in 2.1 *if* "from __future__ import nested_scopes" is
included at the top of scope.py, it prints
x is 666
Standard Module __future__.py
Lib/__future__.py is a real module, and serves three purposes:
1. To avoid confusing existing tools that analyze import statements and
expect to find the modules they're importing.
2. To ensure that future_statements run under releases prior to 2.1
at least yield runtime exceptions (the import of __future__ will
fail, because there was no module of that name prior to 2.1).
3. To document when incompatible changes were introduced, and when they
will be-- or were --made mandatory. This is a form of executable
documentation, and can be inspected programatically via importing
__future__ and examining its contents.
Each statement in __future__.py is of the form:
FeatureName = "_Feature(" OptionalRelease "," MandatoryRelease ")"
where, normally, OptionalRelease < MandatoryRelease, and both are
5-tuples of the same form as sys.version_info:
(PY_MAJOR_VERSION, # the 2 in 2.1.0a3; an int
PY_MINOR_VERSION, # the 1; an int
PY_MICRO_VERSION, # the 0; an int
PY_RELEASE_LEVEL, # "alpha", "beta", "candidate" or "final"; string
PY_RELEASE_SERIAL # the 3; an int
)
OptionalRelease records the first release in which
from __future__ import FeatureName
was accepted.
In the case of MandatoryReleases that have not yet occurred,
MandatoryRelease predicts the release in which the feature will become
part of the language.
Else MandatoryRelease records when the feature became part of the
language; in releases at or after that, modules no longer need
from __future__ import FeatureName
to use the feature in question, but may continue to use such imports.
MandatoryRelease may also be None, meaning that a planned feature got
dropped.
Instances of class _Feature have two corresponding methods,
.getOptionalRelease() and .getMandatoryRelease().
No feature line will ever be deleted from __future__.py.
Example line:
nested_scopes = _Feature((2, 1, 0, "beta", 1), (2, 2, 0, "final", 0))
This means that
from __future__ import nested_scopes
will work in all releases at or after 2.1b1, and that nested_scopes are
intended to be enforced starting in release 2.2.
Resolved Problem: Runtime Compilation
Several Python features can compile code during a module's runtime:
1. The exec statement.
2. The execfile() function.
3. The compile() function.
4. The eval() function.
5. The input() function.
Since a module M containing a future_statement naming feature F
explicitly requests that the current release act like a future release
with respect to F, any code compiled dynamically from text passed to
one of these from within M should probably also use the new syntax or
semantics associated with F. The 2.1 release does behave this way.
This isn't always desired, though. For example, doctest.testmod(M)
compiles examples taken from strings in M, and those examples should
use M's choices, not necessarily the doctest module's choices. In the
2.1 release, this isn't possible, and no scheme has yet been suggested
for working around this. NOTE: PEP 264 later addressed this in a
flexible way, by adding optional arguments to compile().
In any case, a future_statement appearing "near the top" (see Syntax
above) of text compiled dynamically by an exec, execfile() or compile()
applies to the code block generated, but has no further effect on the
module that executes such an exec, execfile() or compile(). This
can't be used to affect eval() or input(), however, because they only
allow expression input, and a future_statement is not an expression.
Resolved Problem: Native Interactive Shells
There are two ways to get an interactive shell:
1. By invoking Python from a command line without a script argument.
2. By invoking Python from a command line with the -i switch and with a
script argument.
An interactive shell can be seen as an extreme case of runtime
compilation (see above): in effect, each statement typed at an
interactive shell prompt runs a new instance of exec, compile() or
execfile(). A future_statement typed at an interactive shell applies to
the rest of the shell session's life, as if the future_statement had
appeared at the top of a module.
Resolved Problem: Simulated Interactive Shells
Interactive shells "built by hand" (by tools such as IDLE and the Emacs
Python-mode) should behave like native interactive shells (see above).
However, the machinery used internally by native interactive shells has
not been exposed, and there isn't a clear way for tools building their
own interactive shells to achieve the desired behavior.
NOTE: PEP 264 later addressed this, by adding intelligence to the
standard codeop.py. Simulated shells that don't use the standard
library shell helpers can get a similar effect by exploiting the
new optional arguments to compile() added by PEP 264.
Questions and Answers
Q: What about a "from __past__" version, to get back *old* behavior?
A: Outside the scope of this PEP. Seems unlikely to the author,
though. Write a PEP if you want to pursue it.
Q: What about incompatibilities due to changes in the Python virtual
machine?
A: Outside the scope of this PEP, although PEP 5 [1] suggests a grace
period there too, and the future_statement may also have a role to
play there.
Q: What about incompatibilities due to changes in Python's C API?
A: Outside the scope of this PEP.
Q: I want to wrap future_statements in try/except blocks, so I can
use different code depending on which version of Python I'm running.
Why can't I?
A: Sorry! try/except is a runtime feature; future_statements are
primarily compile-time gimmicks, and your try/except happens long
after the compiler is done. That is, by the time you do
try/except, the semantics in effect for the module are already a
done deal. Since the try/except wouldn't accomplish what it
*looks* like it should accomplish, it's simply not allowed. We
also want to keep these special statements very easy to find and to
recognize.
Note that you *can* import __future__ directly, and use the
information in it, along with sys.version_info, to figure out where
the release you're running under stands in relation to a given
feature's status.
Q: Going back to the nested_scopes example, what if release 2.2 comes
along and I still haven't changed my code? How can I keep the 2.1
behavior then?
A: By continuing to use 2.1, and not moving to 2.2 until you do change
your code. The purpose of future_statement is to make life easier
for people who keep current with the latest release in a timely
fashion. We don't hate you if you don't, but your problems are
much harder to solve, and somebody with those problems will need to
write a PEP addressing them. future_statement is aimed at a
different audience.
Q: Overloading "import" sucks. Why not introduce a new statement for
this?
A: Like maybe "lambda lambda nested_scopes"? That is, unless we
introduce a new keyword, we can't introduce an entirely new
statement. But if we introduce a new keyword, that in itself
would break old code. That would be too ironic to bear. Yes,
overloading "import" does suck, but not as energetically as the
alternatives -- as is, future_statements are 100% backward
compatible.
Copyright
This document has been placed in the public domain.
References and Footnotes
[1] PEP 5, Guidelines for Language Evolution, Prescod
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0005/
[2] PEP 227, Statically Nested Scopes, Hylton
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0227/
[3] PEP 230, Warning Framework, Van Rossum
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0230/
[4] Note that this is "may" and not "will": better safe than sorry. Of
course spurious warnings won't be generated when avoidable with
reasonable cost.
[5] This ensures that a future_statement run under a release prior to
the first one in which a given feature is known (but >= 2.1) will
raise a compile-time error rather than silently do a wrong thing.
If transported to a release prior to 2.1, a runtime error will be
raised because of the failure to import __future__ (no such module
existed in the standard distribution before the 2.1 release, and
the double underscores make it a reserved name).
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
End: