[Python-Dev] PEP 3118: Extended buffer protocol (new version)

2007-04-18 Thread Carl Banks
Travis Oliphant wrote: > Carl Banks wrote: >> Ok, I've thought quite a bit about this, and I have an idea that I >> think will be ok with you, and I'll be able to drop my main >> objection. It's not a big change, either. The key is to explicitly >> say whether the flag allows or requires. But

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3118: Extended buffer protocol (new version)

2007-04-18 Thread Travis Oliphant
Carl Banks wrote: > Ok, I've thought quite a bit about this, and I have an idea that I > think will be ok with you, and I'll be able to drop my main > objection. It's not a big change, either. The key is to explicitly > say whether the flag allows or requires. But I made a few other > change

[Python-Dev] Weekly Python Patch/Bug Summary

2007-04-18 Thread Kurt B. Kaiser
Patch / Bug Summary ___ Patches : 357 open ( +8) / 3745 closed ( +8) / 4102 total (+16) Bugs: 958 open (+19) / 6657 closed ( +9) / 7615 total (+28) RFE : 251 open ( +2) / 280 closed ( +2) / 531 total ( +4) New / Reopened Patches __ Help with

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3118: Extended buffer protocol (new version)

2007-04-18 Thread Travis E. Oliphant
Jim Jewett wrote: > Reading this message without the entire PEP in front of me showed some > confusing usage. (Details below) Most (but not all) I could resolve > from the PEP itself, but they could be clarified with different > constant names. > I'm going to adapt some suggestions made by you

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3118: Extended buffer protocol (new version)

2007-04-18 Thread Travis Oliphant
Greg Ewing wrote: > Carl Banks wrote: > >> Py_BUF_REQUIRE_READONLY - Raise excpetion if the buffer is writable. > > Is there a use case for this? Yes. The idea is used in NumPy all the time. Suppose you want to write to an array but only have an algorithm that works with contiguous data. Then

Re: [Python-Dev] SystemErrors in generator (just happened in 2.5)

2007-04-18 Thread Thomas Heller
>> *** The following messages occur in other successful tests too: >> a DOS box should flash briefly ... > > Always happens in test_subprocess, during the Windows-specific > test_creationflags. This is expected. When you /watch/ the tests > running on Windows, it's intended to prevent panic

Re: [Python-Dev] Proposal: Allow any mapping after ** in calls

2007-04-18 Thread Guido van Rossum
I'm +1 on the idea, but have no time to review the change. On 4/18/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Belopolsky schrieb: > > Python allows arbitrary sequences after * in calls, but an expression > > following ** must be a (subclass of) dict. I believe * and ** should > > be

Re: [Python-Dev] Proposal: Allow any mapping after ** in calls

2007-04-18 Thread Georg Brandl
Alexander Belopolsky schrieb: > Python allows arbitrary sequences after * in calls, but an expression > following ** must be a (subclass of) dict. I believe * and ** should > be treated similarly and since f(*UserList(..)) is valid, > f(**UserDict(..)) should be valid as well. > > Of course, I ca

Re: [Python-Dev] minidom -> new-style classes?

2007-04-18 Thread Guido van Rossum
Great -- if you target 2.6, it'll automatically be merged into 3.0 the next time somebody runs svnmerge. (Thomas?) --Guido On 4/18/07, Jason Orendorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/17/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhaps a rewrite could target 3.0 and 2.6 could use a ba

Re: [Python-Dev] minidom -> new-style classes?

2007-04-18 Thread Jason Orendorff
On 4/17/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps a rewrite could target 3.0 and 2.6 could use a backported > version of this *if* py3k compatibility mode is enabled? I'd love to > see at least the 3.0 version cleaned up. A lot of these bugs can be fixed without forking. I've been