forked from python/peps
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
pep-0236.txt
379 lines (263 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
374
375
376
377
378
379
PEP: 236
Title: Back to the __future__
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Tim Peters <[email protected]>
Status: Final
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
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_statements 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 programmatically 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
=====================
What about a "from __past__" version, to get back *old* behavior?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Outside the scope of this PEP. Seems unlikely to the author, though. Write a
PEP if you want to pursue it.
What about incompatibilities due to changes in the Python virtual machine?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
What about incompatibilities due to changes in Python's C API?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Outside the scope of this PEP.
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Overloading ``import`` sucks. Why not introduce a new statement for this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: