Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Removed 2.7 as too late, can we get this into 3.2?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
versions: -Python 2.7
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
--
stage: needs patch -> patch review
versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 2.6, Python 3.0
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/iss
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
@Brian/Tim do have have any input on this? Also note that a similar patch
exists on issue7639.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy, brian.curtin, tim.golden
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Can someone please comment on whether or not this issue is still valid.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
resolution: postponed ->
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/iss
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
There's a one line patch in msg59242, could someone please take a look.
Apparantly py3k is not affected by this issue although I haven't tried it
myself.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
stage: unit test needed -> patch review
versions: +Python 2.
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
There are several suggestions inline as how how the docs should be changed.
--
assignee: -> d...@python
nosy: +BreamoreBoy, d...@python
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/iss
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is anyone out there using Sun Studio who can comment on this? If there are no
responses within a couple of weeks I'll close.
--
status: open -> pending
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Can someone please review the attached patch with a view to committing, it
contains doc and unit test changes.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
stage: -> patch review
versions: -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker
&l
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file8527/bug_3740_1.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1274>
___
___
Python-bugs-list m
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
The patch simply changes test_doctest, is it acceptable or not?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
--
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.6, Python 3.0
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1322>
___
___
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
No reply to msg114602 so I'll close in a couple of weeks unless anyone objects.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
status: open -> pending
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
>From msg84550 "The added functionality is useful, but this patch is not the
>way to go". Can this be closed as rejected, would the OP like to supply an
>updated patch, or what?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy, terry.reedy
versions: +Pyt
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is this still valid?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy -gvanrossum
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.6, Python 3.0
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
This will go nowhere unless a patch is provided that contains code, doc and
unit test changes.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
stage: -> unit test needed
type: -> behavior
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Pyth
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is this still valid?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1441>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
@Brian/Tim what would you expect to happen here?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy, brian.curtin, tim.golden
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
No reply to msg85633.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1458>
___
_
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
There's a one line patch in msg57749 and some unit tests are attached so would
a committer take a look please. Also note that #2174 and #2175 are related.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
stage: -> patch review
type: -&g
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10269/BaseHTTPServer_continue.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1491>
___
___
Pytho
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10278/BaseHTTPRequestHandlerTestCase.py
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1491>
___
___
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10684/BaseHTTPServer_continue_2.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1491>
___
___
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
--
stage: -> patch review
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/iss
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
No reply to msg71746.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1504>
___
_
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Closing as recommended in msg101239.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/iss
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
I don't believe that this can still be an issue.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Can we have an update on this please as it seems important.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Could someone please review the latest patch, I'd like to see the OP's work
rewarded with the patch getting into 3.2.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
--
nosy: +taleinat, terry.reedy
stage: unit test needed -> needs patch
versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 2.7, Python 3.1
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/iss
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
This will go nowhere unless someone supplies a patch.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 2.7, Python 3.1
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
@Brian/Tim what's your take on this?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy, brian.curtin, tim.golden
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is this ever likely to go anywhere? My understanding is that this would be
difficult to do (or have I simply misread something?). If I'm correct,
wouldn't it be better to use our limited resources elsewhere?
--
nosy: +B
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
This is still an issue with the latest trunk.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
See also #1616 and #1621.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7225>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsub
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
How many warnings are we now getting on the buildbots?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
versions: -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Well what is the decision? FWIW I sway towards the +0 from msg112156 rather
than the -0 from msg63791, but then what do I know?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
@umaxx are you interested in taking this forward?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
--
assignee: georg.brandl -> d...@python
nosy: +d...@python
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1722>
___
___
Python-
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
What is the use case for this?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue9896>
___
___
Python-bug
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Patch worked fine with 2.7. I reworked it for SVN trunk but got this failure.
FAILED (failures=1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "test_filecmp.py", line 179, in
test_main()
File "test_filecmp.py", li
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Can a committer review this please. Can't test it myself as I don't have a
*NIX box, sorry.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.pyth
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
No reply to msg110596.
--
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1763>
___
___
Python-bugs-lis
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
This will go nowhere until someone supplies a patch. I'm assuming unit tests
can be built using the attached test file.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
stage: unit test needed -> needs patch
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.2 -Py
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
The 1st declaration still exists, the 2nd has been removed.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
I can't apply the patch to any current SVN version.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
>From msg86386 "Nevertheless, after reading your comments I came to the
>conclusion that doing what you want is very unlikely to happen." so closing.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<htt
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Anybody?
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1800>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is this ever likely to happen given the switch to Mercurial, or is that a
different scenario to this?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
I'm not convinced that this needs doing, so I'll close in a couple of weeks
unless anyone objects.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
status: open -> pending
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.pyth
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Anyone interested in picking this up? I've tried and fell flat on my face :(
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
--
assignee: georg.brandl -> d...@python
nosy: +d...@python
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1865>
___
___
Python-
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Any opinions as to whether the patch should be reworked for 3.2 or not?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
versions: -Python 2.7
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
--
nosy: +r.david.murray
versions: -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1874>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
msg81023 indicates that more work is needed on this.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
stage: -> needs patch
type: -> behavior
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
There's been no reply to msg109822, so should this be closed with the
Superseder field updated or what?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy, eric.araujo
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Any *NIX gurus who can sort this one?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
versions: +Python 2.7 -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
No reply to msg110599, I'll close this in a couple of weeks unless anyone
objects.
--
status: open -> pending
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
--
assignee: georg.brandl -> d...@python
nosy: +d...@python
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1944>
___
___
Python-
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
I've set the stage to patch review becasue I think this reflects the accepted
resolution. I don't understand why this hasn't been committed, anyone?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
stage: -> patch review
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is this ever likely to happen, given that there's been 2.75 years since the
request without a response?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is this still an issue? If yes can a *NIX type person action it. If no can we
close it?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy -gvanrossum
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Quote msg83564 "This is still a good idea.", in which case shouldn't someone
push this forward, failing that close as out of date?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.py
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
I'm assuming that this has never been implemented, am I correct?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Can someone please backport this to 2.7 so we can get this closed, thanks.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
versions: +Python 2.7 -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
I'll close this as suggested in msg106281 in a couple of weeks unless someone
objects.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
status: open -> pending
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
If my reading of this is correct there is little or nothing to be gained by
applying any patch, hence can this be closed?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
difflib._file_template is still hard-coded in py3k SVN. I'm unsure as to
whether this is a feature request, a behaviour issue or not an issue at all,
can someone please advise, thanks.
--
nosy: +Breamo
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is this really needed? TortoiseSVN is a cracking bit of kit, and I'm hoping
that in the future TortoiseHG is as good if not better.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
The patch is now way out of date to the extent that I can't find the code in
fileobject.c, perhaps I'm just blind Can someone please provide a new patch,
thanks.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
versions: +Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -
Changes by Mark Lawrence :
--
versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 2.6, Python 3.0
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2123>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
As nobody appears to be interested I'll close this in a couple of weeks unless
someone objects.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
status: open -> pending
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Nobody appears to be interested so I'll close this in a couple of weeks unless
someone objects, unless a patch is provided.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
status: open -> pending
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is this a bug or isn't it, so should it be behaviour or feature request or what?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
I think distutils changes should be aimed at several versions, please correct
them if I'm wrong.
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy, eric.araujo
versions: +Python 2.5, Python 2.6, Python 3.1, Python 3.2
___
Python tracker
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Is this still valid?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy, gpolo, taleinat, terry.reedy
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.6, Python 3.0
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the email list as I've been banned from
contributing to Python by Raymond Hettinger
From: Martin v. Löwis
To: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 21 September, 2010 16:28:
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the email list as I've been banned from
contributing to Python by Raymond Hettinger
From: Antoine Pitrou
To: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 21 September, 2010 16:43:
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the email list as I've been banned from
contributing to Python by Raymond Hettinger
From: Martin v. Löwis
To: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 21 September, 2010 16:53:
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the email list as I've been banned from
contributing to Python by Raymond Hettinger
From: Sébastien Sablé
To: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 21 September, 2010 17:36:
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the email list as I've been banned from
contributing to Python by Raymond Hettinger
From: Martin v. Löwis
To: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 21 September, 2010 18:16:
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the email list as I've been banned from
contributing to Python by Raymond Hettinger
From: Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
To: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 21 September, 2010 1
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the email list as I've been banned from
contributing to Python by Raymond Hettinger
From: Alexander Belopolsky
To: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 21 September, 2010 19:30:
Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the email list as I've been banned from
contributing to Python by Raymond Hettinger
From: Alexander Belopolsky
To: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 21 September, 2010 19:35:
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
Thanks for the report. This looks like it's probably a bug (not a particularly
serious one, but worth reporting) on AIX.
The 'tanh' configure test diagnoses a similar wrong-sign-of-zero problem on
FreeBSD; it looks as though AIX is happy
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
P.S. Was the test with a debug build of Python? If not, could you see if the
test failure still occurs with a debug build (i.e., when --with-pydebug is
passed as a configure argument)? That would help eliminate compiler
optimization bugs as a possible
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
Sorry---one more question: could you tell me what the following gives on the
AIX machine?
Python 2.7 (r27:82500, Aug 15 2010, 14:21:15)
[GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5664)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
Thanks; so it's probably not an optimization bug, but rather a math library
bug somewhere.
And thanks for the tanh result; unfortunately I asked the wrong question---I
meant to ask about atanh(complex(-0.0, 0.0)) :(
Analysis: atan(z) is com
New submission from Mark Shannon :
Attached program fails.
See comments in file for details and possible diagnosis
--
files: binary_op_mimic.py
messages: 117216
nosy: Mark.Shannon
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Incorrect semantics of __radd__ method for builtin
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
If I understand correctly, the complaint is that (for example) in Python 3.x,
we have:
Python 3.1.2 (r312:79147, Aug 20 2010, 20:06:00)
[GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5664)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or
Changes by Mark Dickinson :
--
versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 2.5, Python 2.6, Python 2.7
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue9930>
___
___
Python-bug
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
> PyNumber_Add ends up calling compare_add with the float as its first
> argument, which is impossible to do from Python.
[Assuming you mean complex_add.] I think this bit is expected, though.
complex_add (or float_add, or whatever) provides bo
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
It looks like Mark is right: the wrap_binaryfunc_r subtype check should just
be removed. The corresponding check in 2.x only occurs for types which don't
have the Py_TPFLAGS_CHECKTYPES flag set. As of 2.7, *all* of the numeric types
have this flag se
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
Fixed in r84984 (py3k), r84986 (release31-maint). Thanks for the report!
--
assignee: -> mark.dickinson
resolution: -> fixed
stage: -> committed/rejected
status: open -> closed
___
Python tr
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
> Right. In practice, returning a long instead of an int can produce bugs,
> mainly because some C functions will only accept ints and refuse longs.
I'd say 'in theory' rather than 'in practice' here. In this particular case, I
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
Committed in r85016. I'll take responsibility for any broken 3rd party code...
--
resolution: -> fixed
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
No, it's not really a bug: math.log(x, 2) isn't an atomic operation: it's
computed internally as something like log(x) / log(2), and since each of the
three steps (computation of the logs, division) can introduce a small rounding
error, y
Changes by Mark Dickinson :
--
nosy: +mark.dickinson
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue9960>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
I've tweaked the loghelper algorithm in r85048.
Looking at [n for n in range(100) if log(2**n) != n], I get:
Python 3.1: 14 bad values out of 1st 100; first is 29
Python 3.2 (patched): 10 bad values; first is 29
Python 3.2 (unpatched): 25 bad values;
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
> [n for n in range(100) if log(2**n) != n]
Should be:
[n for n in range(100) if log(2**n, 2) != n]
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/iss
Mark Wielaard added the comment:
> - renamed the probepoints:
> "function__entry" -> "frame__entry"
> "function__return" -> "frame__exit"
>as I believe this better describes what these do
Are you sure you want to d
1001 - 1100 of 12207 matches
Mail list logo