The last 3.11 beta release (3.11.0b5) is now available

Here we are. The universe. The vastness of spacetime. At the edge. The last frontier. The last beta*(conditions apply) for Python 3.11.

We have defied the powerful gods of release blockers and we have won by using the required amount of ruse and subterfuge.


Due to the modified release schedule and the stability concerns regarding the past beta releases, please, please, please, please, help us to test Python 3.11 by testing this beta releases.

  • if you maintain a library or a third-party package. Test the beta releases!
  • If you have code that you maintain at work/research centre/classroom/whatever. Test the beta releases!
  • If you are a multi-million corporation that uses Python. Test the beta releases!
  • If you are a single-person company that uses Python. Test the beta releases!
  • If you have a bunch of Python scripts. Test the beta releases!
  • If you use Python for work, research, teaching or literally for anything. Test the beta releases!
  • If you …

In summary: no matter who you are of what you do. Test the beta releases!

Is very important for us that we identify all possible things that may break your code before the final release is done and we can only do this if you help us by testing the beta releases and then report anything that doesn’t work!

This is a beta preview of Python 3.11

Python 3.11 is still in development. 3.11.0b5 is the last of five planned beta release previews. Beta release previews are intended to give the wider community the opportunity to test new features and bug fixes and to prepare their projects to support the new feature release.

We strongly encourage maintainers of third-party Python projects to test with 3.11 during the beta phase and report issues found to the Python bug tracker as soon as possible. While the release is planned to be feature complete entering the beta phase, it is possible that features may be modified or, in rare cases, deleted up until the start of the release candidate phase (Monday, 2021-08-02). Our goal is have no ABI changes after beta 5 and as few code changes as possible after 3.11.0rc1, the first release candidate. To achieve that, it will be extremely important to get as much exposure for 3.11 as possible during the beta phase.

Please keep in mind that this is a preview release and its use is not recommended for production environments.

Major new features of the 3.11 series, compared to 3.10

Some of the new major new features and changes in Python 3.11 are:

General changes

  • PEP 657 – Include Fine-Grained Error Locations in Tracebacks
  • PEP 654 – Exception Groups and except*
  • PEP 680– tomllib: Support for Parsing TOML in the Standard Library
  • PEP 681– Data Class Transforms
  • gh-90908– Introduce task groups to asyncio
  • gh-34627 – Atomic grouping ((?>...)) and possessive quantifiers (*+, ++, ?+, {m,n}+) are now supported in regular expressions.
  • The Faster CPython Project is already yielding some exciting results. Python 3.11 is up to 10-60% faster than Python 3.10. On average, we measured a 1.22x speedup on the standard benchmark suite. See Faster CPython for details.

Typing and typing language changes

  • PEP 673 – Self Type
  • PEP 646– Variadic Generics
  • PEP 675– Arbitrary Literal String Type
  • PEP 655– Marking individual TypedDict items as required or potentially-missing

(Hey, fellow core developer, if a feature you find important is missing from this list, let Pablo know.)

The next pre-release of Python 3.11 will be 3.11.0rc1, currently scheduled for Monday, 2022-08-01.

More resources

And now for something completely different

Schwarzschild wormholes, also known as Einstein–Rosen bridges (named after Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen), are connections between areas of space that can be modelled as vacuum solutions to the Einstein field equations, and that are now understood to be intrinsic parts of the maximally extended version of the Schwarzschild metric describing an eternal black hole with no charge and no rotation. Here, “maximally extended” refers to the idea that spacetime should not have any “edges”: it should be possible to continue this path arbitrarily far into the particle’s future or past for any possible trajectory of a free-falling particle (following a geodesic in the spacetime).

The Einstein–Rosen bridge was discovered by Ludwig Flamm in 1916, a few months after Schwarzschild published his solution, and was rediscovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who published their result in 1935. However, in 1962, John Archibald Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable if it connects two parts of the same universe and that it will pinch off too quickly for light (or any particle moving slower than light) that falls in from one exterior region to make it to the other exterior region.

Although Schwarzschild wormholes are not traversable in both directions, their existence inspired Kip Thorne to imagine traversable wormholes created by holding the “throat” of a Schwarzschild wormhole open with exotic matter (material that has negative mass/energy).

We hope you enjoy the new releases!

Thanks to all of the many volunteers who help make Python Development and these releases possible! Please consider supporting our efforts by volunteering yourself or through organization contributions to the Python Software Foundation.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me or another member of the release team :slight_smile:

Your friendly release team,

Ned Deily @nad Profile - nad - Discussions on
Steve Dower @steve.dower Profile - steve.dower - Discussions on
Pablo Galindo Salgado @pablogsal Profile - pablogsal - Discussions on


EPR == ER ? (or maybe is)? :nerd_face:


Haha, close but no cigar :slight_smile:

Is the same E and R :wink:

Yup. The question is, as I understand it from a physics-phandom perspective, is entanglement (EPR) the same thing or a different perspective on ER bridges (wormholes)? I’ve been watching a lot of Susskind’s lectures lately, and I’m fascinated by what I understand is his perspective on this, i.e. the linkage between (perhaps equivalence of) entanglement and ER bridges, along with the implications of the holographic universe models on the connection between QM and GR.

I guess we need an OT/Physics sub-Discuss channel now, don’t we? :grin:

Seems to pass my application unit tests. I was using beta 4 for a while and didn’t notice any issues besides the pain of building extensions. cython, numpy, pybind11, greenlet, grpc, pandas, scipy and statsmodules can be installed from git source trees. A gotcha with statsmodules seems that it doesn’t generate if you install directly from the git repo. For scipy, you can install from pypi if you use --pre. I wish that worked for all my extensions since building from source has become really painful. I’m not a fan of isolated builds combined with version pinning. There should be some options to say “give me the latest version of everything”.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I general, General Relativity has no Quantum Mechanical concepts into the theory. Not only that, as you know, is quite incompatible with our classical approaches to quantization (renormalization attempts fail because you get coupling constants with dimensions and other stuff like unavoidable infinities). This obviously hints that a more overarching theory is needed.

Due to this, is technically not possible to answer if ER bridges and EPR are related in nature. You can throw some of the candidates for quantum GR at the problem but in general they won’t tell you anything relevant for this (at least for now), just that some mechanisms are “similar”.

In general (although this is a classical thought about the problem) there is a fundamental difference between EPR and ER: ER is the spacetime while EPR happens in the spacetime. They are subjected to different rules and mechanisms. For instance, spacetime itself can expand faster than light. but no information can travel in spacetime faster than light.

I guess we need an OT/Physics sub-Discuss channel now, don’t we? :grin:

Very much indeed :laughing:

That’s an excellent point. There’s a revolution in our thinking about the universe and our place in it lurking there somewhere! Clearly lots of smart people thinking about it, but who knows how long until the next Einstein breaks everything?