2013/3/17 Barry Warsaw :
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 09:16 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
>>try:
>>newSimpleXMLAPI()
>>newapi = True
>>except Exception:
>>newapi = False
>
> try:
> True
> except NameError:
> True = 1
> False = 0
>
> -Barry
I understand why your bedtime is 21:30. :)
On Mar 17, 2013, at 09:16 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>try:
>newSimpleXMLAPI()
>newapi = True
>except Exception:
>newapi = False
try:
True
except NameError:
True = 1
False = 0
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> [PEP 436 revised syntax]
>
> While I like the syntax better and appreciate the option to condense the
> function declaration I still fear that the amount of implicitness will
> distract from what is important: programming in C.
>
> This applies
On 3/17/2013 8:48 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mar 17, 2013, at 05:37 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Any attempt to fix the XML issues *will* change the behavior of the
library and result into an incompatibility with older releases. Benjamin
doesn't want to change the behavior of our XML libraries.
On Mar 17, 2013, at 05:37 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
>Any attempt to fix the XML issues *will* change the behavior of the
>library and result into an incompatibility with older releases. Benjamin
>doesn't want to change the behavior of our XML libraries. IIRC Georg and
>Barry are +0. I think that
[PEP 436 revised syntax]
While I like the syntax better and appreciate the option to condense the
function declaration I still fear that the amount of implicitness will
distract from what is important: programming in C.
This applies especially if people start declaring converters using the
[pytho
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Eli Bendersky, 17.03.2013 19:25:
> > IMHO Benjamin is right, given that this attack has been known to exist
> > since 2003. Moreover, as it appears that no changes whatsoever are going
> to
> > make it into 2.7, I don't see why patching of
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:00:19 +0100
Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Eli Bendersky, 17.03.2013 19:25:
> > IMHO Benjamin is right, given that this attack has been known to exist
> > since 2003. Moreover, as it appears that no changes whatsoever are going to
> > make it into 2.7, I don't see why patching of 3.
Eli Bendersky, 17.03.2013 19:25:
> IMHO Benjamin is right, given that this attack has been known to exist
> since 2003. Moreover, as it appears that no changes whatsoever are going to
> make it into 2.7, I don't see why patching of 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 is needed.
> As for 3.4, it can't hurt to add an o
I like to give an update on the XML vulnerability fixes. Brett has asked
> me a couple of days ago but I haven't had time to answer. I was/am busy
> with my daily job.
>
> Any attempt to fix the XML issues *will* change the behavior of the
> library and result into an incompatibility with older re
Hello,
I like to give an update on the XML vulnerability fixes. Brett has asked
me a couple of days ago but I haven't had time to answer. I was/am busy
with my daily job.
Any attempt to fix the XML issues *will* change the behavior of the
library and result into an incompatibility with older rele
I am going to cut the 2.7.4 release branch next weekend (March 23,
24). Things which are breaking the buildbots at the point will be
backed out. Owners of current release blockers will be poked, but
nothing is going to hold up the release. The show must go on.
Benjamin
On 03/16/2013 02:17 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
Both PEPs were discussed at PyCon. The state of affairs is that a
compromise is being worked upon and will be published by Larry in
a revised PEP.
I've pushed an update to PEP 436, the Argument Clinic PEP. It's now
live on python.org.
//arry/
___
13 matches
Mail list logo
