Re: [Python-Dev] Removal of intobject.h in 3.1

2009-11-21 Thread Case Vanhorsen
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >> IMHO, that's not really a good way to encourage people to try to provide >> a smooth upgrade to the 3.x branch. Much to the contrary. 3.x should make >> it easier for developers by providing more standard helpers like >> the removed int

Re: [Python-Dev] Removal of intobject.h in 3.1

2009-11-21 Thread Martin v. Löwis
> IMHO, that's not really a good way to encourage people to try to provide > a smooth upgrade to the 3.x branch. Much to the contrary. 3.x should make > it easier for developers by providing more standard helpers like > the removed intobject.h header file. I think it's better than it sounds. The m

[Python-Dev] Issue 1488943 - differ lib missing tab hinting

2009-11-21 Thread Phillip Hellewell
Is there anything holding up fixing issue 1488943? The bug was found and a patch submitted 3 1/2 years ago. The patch is just a single line of code (and some comment changes): common = min(common, _count_leading(btags[:common], " ")) http://bugs.python.org/issue1488943 Thanks, Phillip Hell

Re: [Python-Dev] Removal of intobject.h in 3.1

2009-11-21 Thread Eric Smith
M.-A. Lemburg wrote: Since package developers are just starting to port things to 3.x and many appear to be considering supporting both 2.7 and 3.1 (including myself), I find it a bit strange that such an import aliasing header was removed in 3.1. There's some discussion of this at http://bugs.

[Python-Dev] Removal of intobject.h in 3.1

2009-11-21 Thread M.-A. Lemburg
The wiki page for porting to 3.x says: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingExtensionModulesToPy3k """ long/int Unification In Python 3.0, there is only one integer type. It is called int on the Python level, but actually corresponds to 2.x's long type. In the C-API, PyInt_* functions are replaced

Re: [Python-Dev] standard libraries don't behave like standard 'libraries'

2009-11-21 Thread Lennart Regebro
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 09:59, Sriram Srinivasan wrote: > you were thinking wrong. If suppose this feature is introduced it doesn't > mean python will become batteries removed! > you can ship the python release with the 'standard library packages' already > installed. > so what we get here is batt