On 10/16/2013 5:01 PM, Peter Portante wrote:
Hello,
Is there a reason why the stdlib socket module _fileobject.flush()
method is using ._rbufsize instead of ._wbufsize at line 297 (Python
2.7.3), where it determines the buffer_size value to be used for
_sock.sendall()? Does anybody know the his
On 16 Oct 2013 21:34, "Victor Stinner" wrote:
>
> 2013/10/16 Raymond Hettinger :
> > FWIW, here's a little history:
>
> Thank you! It helped me to understand the story.
>
> > * In February, I presented ignore() in the keynote for the U.S. Pycon.
> > Again, the feedback was positive.
>
> I missed
Hello,
Is there a reason why the stdlib socket module _fileobject.flush() method
is using ._rbufsize instead of ._wbufsize at line 297 (Python 2.7.3), where
it determines the buffer_size value to be used for _sock.sendall()? Does
anybody know the history behind this?
Based on what I read in the
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 08:31 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
>>When a module's maintainer makes a decision on a relatively insignificant
>>addition to the module, I'd expect little resistance or even comment (the
>>original commit was months ago). That's w
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Facundo Batista
wrote:
> (all this using Python 3.4.0a3+)
>
> In the stdlib, I see that (as an example):
>
import os
os.path.abspath
>
os.path
>
>
>
> However, for other (newer) modules:
>
import urllib
urllib.requests.urlopen
> Tracebac
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Facundo Batista
wrote:
> (all this using Python 3.4.0a3+)
>
> In the stdlib, I see that (as an example):
>
> >>> import os
> >>> os.path.abspath
>
> >>> os.path
>
>
>
> However, for other (newer) modules:
>
> >>> import urllib
> >>> urllib.requests.urlopen
> Trac
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:26:11PM -0300, Facundo Batista
wrote:
> (all this using Python 3.4.0a3+)
>
> In the stdlib, I see that (as an example):
>
> >>> import os
> >>> os.path.abspath
>
> >>> os.path
>
>
>
> However, for other (newer) modules:
>
> >>> import urllib
> >>> urllib.requests
(all this using Python 3.4.0a3+)
In the stdlib, I see that (as an example):
>>> import os
>>> os.path.abspath
>>> os.path
However, for other (newer) modules:
>>> import urllib
>>> urllib.requests.urlopen
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
AttributeError: 'module' objec
Eric Snow writes:
> That's why I'm surprised by the reaction to this change. It just
> seems like the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion to
> the detriment of other interesting problems.
The feature itself a perfect bikeshedding pitfall. Everybody here
understands the Zen, and
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:31:44 -0600,
Eric Snow a écrit :
>
> You make several good points, Victor. However, in this case the
> change is a new function and a small, innocuous one at that. That is
> not enough justification alone, as Antoine pointed out, but the
> module's maintainer made a decis
On 10/16/2013 07:06 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Actually, it was to kick around one line of code, the most import one:
def ignored(...):
s/import/important/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/
Victor Stinner writes:
> the idea), but I don't understand the purpose of adding a new syntax
> doing exactly the same than try/except:
>
> > with trap(OSError) as cm:
> > os.unlink('missing.txt')
> > if cm.exc:
> > do_something()
>
> Nobody noticed that this can
On Oct 16, 2013, at 08:31 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
>When a module's maintainer makes a decision on a relatively insignificant
>addition to the module, I'd expect little resistance or even comment (the
>original commit was months ago). That's why I'm surprised by the reaction
>to this change. It just
I would rewrite your examples using try/finally:
try:
try:
os.unlink('missing.txt')
finally:
some
other
code
except OSError as exc:
do_something()
It's differently than yours, because it catchs OSError on "some; other
Victor Stinner a écrit :
> I might agree with idea of contextlib.ignore() (I'm still opposed to
> the idea), but I don't understand the purpose of adding a new syntax
> doing exactly the same than try/except:
>
> > with trap(OSError) as cm:
> > os.unlink('missing.txt')
> > if cm.
On 10/16/2013 12:07 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
this thread still epitomises everything that sucks about soul destroying,
energy draining bikeshed painting that makes
me wonder why I ever bother trying to make anything better.
I think each of
On Oct 16, 2013 5:35 AM, "Victor Stinner" wrote:
>
> 2013/10/16 Raymond Hettinger :
> > FWIW, here's a little history:
>
> Thank you! It helped me to understand the story.
>
> > * In February, I presented ignore() in the keynote for the U.S. Pycon.
> > Again, the feedback was positive.
>
> I mis
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:09:16 +0200,
Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:01:37 +0200,
> Victor Stinner a écrit :
> > 2013/10/16 Antoine Pitrou :
> > >> By the way, what are the performances of contextlib.ignore()?
> > >> Exceptions can be slow in some cases. Adding something even
> >
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:01:37 +0200,
Victor Stinner a écrit :
> 2013/10/16 Antoine Pitrou :
> >> By the way, what are the performances of contextlib.ignore()?
> >> Exceptions can be slow in some cases. Adding something even slower
> >> would not be a good idea.
> >
> > A "try" block which succeeds
2013/10/16 Antoine Pitrou :
>> By the way, what are the performances of contextlib.ignore()?
>> Exceptions can be slow in some cases. Adding something even slower
>> would not be a good idea.
>
> A "try" block which succeeds is fast.
Ah yes, I never reminder this fact. I try to not care too much o
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:42:34 +0200,
Victor Stinner a écrit :
> I might agree with idea of contextlib.ignore() (I'm still opposed to
> the idea), but I don't understand the purpose of adding a new syntax
> doing exactly the same than try/except:
>
> > with trap(OSError) as cm:
> > os.u
I might agree with idea of contextlib.ignore() (I'm still opposed to
the idea), but I don't understand the purpose of adding a new syntax
doing exactly the same than try/except:
> with trap(OSError) as cm:
> os.unlink('missing.txt')
> if cm.exc:
> do_something()
Nobody not
2013/10/16 Raymond Hettinger :
> FWIW, here's a little history:
Thank you! It helped me to understand the story.
> * In February, I presented ignore() in the keynote for the U.S. Pycon.
> Again, the feedback was positive.
I missed this edition of Pycon US. How did you feedback on the keynote?
CONGRATULATION! This thread reached 100 mails, it's now time to
summarize it into a PEP. Is there a candidate to write it?
If no PEP is written, the thread will never die and people will
continue to feed it.
Victor
2013/10/11 Antoine Pitrou :
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:39:48 +0200 (CE
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 00:07:16 -0700,
Raymond Hettinger a écrit :
>
> As Nick said, this thread was just awful. I found it painful to read
> each day. Shoot from the hip comments were given greater weight than
> months of development. Neither Nick nor I were given an ounce of
> respect for the th
On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> this thread still epitomises everything that sucks about soul destroying,
> energy draining bikeshed painting that makes me wonder why I ever bother
> trying to make anything better.
>
FWIW, here's a little history:
* Last year, one of my
26 matches
Mail list logo
