Neal Norwitz schrieb:
> I think we should document our intentions in the release PEP (or some
> other PEP possibly). Should we state that we will support version x.y
> for N years after initial release or based on version numbers such as
> x.(y-N) where y is the current version and N is a small nu
Talin wrote:
> What I am doing right now is creating a new extension project using
> setuputils, and keeping notes on what I do. So for example, I start by
> creating the directory structure:
>
> mkdir myproject
> cd myproject
> mkdir src
> mkdir test
I'd forgotten about this un
In bug #1566280 somebody reported that he gets an
exception where the logging module tries to write
to closed file descriptor.
Upon investigation, it turns out that the file descriptor
is closed because the logging atexit handler is invoked.
This is surprising, as the program is far from exiting a
It's been my pleasure to write the Python-Dev Summaries for the last
year and a half -- 40 summaries all told, 8 of those with Tim Lesher
and 23 with Tony Meyer. It's really been an incredible learning
experience, both in how the Python development process works, and in
how Python as a community in
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh has been working on a `new Python FAQ`_
footnote: working on cleaning up the old FAQ, to be precise. it'll end
up on python.org, as soon as Andrew Kuchling gets around to complete his
FAQ renderer (which may take a while, since he's busy with PyCon 2007).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Taking one example from this thread, Python's bytecode has always been an
> internal implementation detail.
I think that has stopped being true at least since I wrote 1997, or
perhaps even since dis.py was written (i.e. right from the beginning
of the language). With d
Here's the summary for the second half of November. As always,
corrections and comments are greatly appreciated. If you were
involved in the November portions of the LSB discussions, I'd
particularly appreciate your reviews of that section.
=
Announcements
=
On 12/5/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So I think a public statement that we will support 2.4 with
> > security patches for a while longer (and perhaps with security
> > patches *only*) would be a good thing - independent of the LSB,
> > actually.
>
> Well, I don't know what so
Could backwards compatibility concerns be addressed
by including more than one version of Python in
the LSB? Python already allows multiple versions
to coexist, so applications targeting the LSB
would just need to be explicit about which version
of the interpreter to launch.
--
Greg
__
Martin v. Löwis escreveu:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys schrieb:
>> In response to Martin v Loewis' initial reply we have sent in
>> contributor agreements, but nothing else has happened so far.
>>
>> I was wondering whether there is any way for me to speed up the review
>> process.
>
> It may not be what yo
On 12/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be
feasible,
>> >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible,
>> >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
>>
Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version
Han-Wen Nienhuys schrieb:
> In response to Martin v Loewis' initial reply we have sent in
> contributor agreements, but nothing else has happened so far.
>
> I was wondering whether there is any way for me to speed up the review
> process.
It may not be what you expect to hear, but there actually
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> In any case, having Python in the LSB means that ISVs (software
> vendors) who target LSB (rather than targetting specific Linux
> distributions) could develop their applications also in Python
> (whereas now they have to use C or C++).
... without having to include a Pyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> >> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible,
> >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
>
> Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is
> Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI f
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
>> So I think a public statement that we will support 2.4 with
>> security patches for a while longer (and perhaps with security
>> patches *only*) would be a good thing - independent of the LSB,
>> actually.
>
> Well, I don't know what sort of public statement you want to
Neal Norwitz schrieb:
>> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would
>> be feasible, and should be attempted. What do you think?
>
> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is different
> for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI for 2.5 since it's already
> released
[Ben Wing ]
>> many times writing somewhat complex loops over lists i've found the need
>> to sometimes delete an item from the list. currently there's no easy
>> way to do so; basically, you have to write something like
[Adam Olsen]
> As I don't believe there's any need for a language extension,
Hi all,
=
PyPy Leysin Winter Sports Sprint (8-14th January 2007)
=
.. image:: http://www.ermina.ch/002.JPG
The next PyPy spr
Hello all,
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a collection of patches to Python 2.5
on SF.net (#1597850) that enable python to be cross-compiled using
standard tools (ie. configure and environment settings), among others
on Linux/Darwin to Mingw32/Linux/Freebsd.
In response to Martin v Loewis' in
Alastair Houghton wrote:
> (The current groups() method *doesn't* match those expectations,
> incidentally. I know I've been tripped up in the past because it
> didn't include the full match as element 0.)
that's because there is no "group 0" in a regular expression; that's
just a historica
On 5 Dec 2006, at 09:02, Ben Wing wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>> taking everything into account, I think we should simply map
>> __getitem__
>> to group, and stop there. no len(), no slicing, no sequence or
>> mapping
>> semantics. if people want full sequence behavi
>> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible,
>> and should be attempted. What do you think?
Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is
Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI for 2.5 since
Neal> it's already
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 17:30, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> People at the meeting specifically said whether security patches
> would still be applied to older releases, and for how many older
> releases. Linux distributors are hesitant to make commitments to
> maintain a software package if they kn
Ben Wing wrote:
> i'm ok either way -- that is, either with the proposal i previously
> published, or with this restricted idea.
ok, I'll whip up a patch for the minimal version of the proposal, if
nobody beats me to it (all that's needed is a as_sequence struct with a
item slot that basically
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>
>
>> I'd say, don't pretend m is a sequence. Pretend it's a mapping.
>> Then the conceptual issues go away.
>>
>
> almost; that would mean returning KeyError instead of IndexError for
> groups that don't exist, which means that the common patt
26 matches
Mail list logo
