-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On behalf of the Python development team, I'm reasonably happy to announce the
Python 3.3.4 release candidate 1.
Python 3.3.4 includes several security fixes and over 120 bug fixes compared to
the Python 3.3.3 release.
This release fully supports OS
On 27 January 2014 15:28, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/26/2014 10:22 PM, nick.coghlan wrote:
>>
>> +Terry Reedy has suggested doing an initial filter which specifically
>> looks
>> +for approved documentation-only patches (~700 of the 4000+ open CPython
>> +issues are pure documentation updates). Thi
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:40:33PM -0500, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> I would say no fix is needed for this doc because the signature suggests
> (correctly) that passing times by keyword is not supported.
How do you determine that? Passing times by keyword works in Python 3.3:
py> from itertoo
On behalf of the Python development team, I'm quite pleased to announce
the third beta release of Python 3.4.
This is a preview release, and its use is not recommended for
production settings.
Python 3.4 includes a range of improvements of the 3.x series, including
hundreds of small improvemen
On 1/26/2014 11:02 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 27 January 2014 13:51, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Vajrasky Kok
wrote:
repeat('a', times=-1)
repeat('a')
As I think about it, this may be more than a bug but a door for a denial of
service attack. Imagine
On 01/26/2014 08:40 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Vajrasky Kok
mailto:sky@speaklikeaking.com>> wrote:
In case we are taking "not backporting anything at all" road, what is
the best fix for the document?
I would say no fix is needed for this do
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Vajrasky Kok
wrote:
> In case we are taking "not backporting anything at all" road, what is
> the best fix for the document?
>
> Old
> >>> itertools.repeat.__doc__
> 'repeat(object [,times]) -> create an iterator which returns the
> object\nfor the specified numbe
On 01/26/2014 08:07 PM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
The first release candidate of Python 3.4 will be tagged in about two weeks.
We need to be completely done with the Derby by then. And it's going to
take a while to review and iterate on
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Vajrasky Kok
wrote:
> What about this alternative? Makes -1 consistently mean unlimited
> repetition and other negative numbers consistently mean zero
> repetitions
>
-1
I think this idea was already rejected on the bug tracker. It will be very
surprising if li
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>>
>
> That is, I'm OK with either not backporting anything at all, or
> backporting the full change. The only idea I object to is the one of
> removing the infinite iteration capability without providing a
> replacement spelling for it.
>
Is
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
>
> +1
>
> A partial backport will do a disservice to both users and maintainers.
In case we are taking "not backporting anything at all" road, what is
the best fix for the document?
Old
>>> itertools.repeat.__doc__
'repeat(object [,t
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> That is, I'm OK with either not backporting anything at all, or
> backporting the full change.
>
+1
A partial backport will do a disservice to both users and maintainers.
___
Python-Dev mailing l
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> The first release candidate of Python 3.4 will be tagged in about two weeks.
> We need to be completely done with the Derby by then. And it's going to
> take a while to review and iterate on the patches we've got.
>
> Therefore: I'm goi
On 27 January 2014 13:51, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Vajrasky Kok
> wrote:
>>
>> >>> repeat('a', times=-1)
>> repeat('a')
>
>
> As I think about it, this may be more than a bug but a door for a denial of
> service attack. Imagine an application where times
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Vajrasky Kok
wrote:
> >>> repeat('a', times=-1)
> repeat('a')
>
As I think about it, this may be more than a bug but a door for a denial of
service attack. Imagine an application where times comes from an
untrusted source. Someone relying on documented behavio
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> There's also the fact that breaking working code in a maintenance release
> is always dubious, especially when there's no current supported way to get
> the equivalent behaviour prior to the maintenance release. This is the kind
> of change t
On 2014-01-27 00:26, Larry Hastings wrote:
On 01/26/2014 04:24 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
Patches posted to the issue tracker on or after Wednesday Jan 29 at
12:00:01am will not be accepted.
Sorry, forgot to specify the time zone: PST, which is GMT -08:00.
Put another way, the submission wind
On 27 Jan 2014 04:44, "Serhiy Storchaka" wrote:
>
> 26.01.14 19:00, Vajrasky Kok написав(ла):
>
>> So I hope my argument is convincing enough. We need to fix this bug in
>> Python 2.7, 3.3, and 3.4, by making `times` argument sent via
>> positional or keyword in itertools.repeat ALWAYS means the s
On 01/26/2014 04:24 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
The first release candidate of Python 3.4 will be tagged in about two
weeks. We need to be completely done with the Derby by then. And it's
going to take a while to review and iterate on the patches we've got.
Since I was asked to clarify: we are
On 01/26/2014 04:24 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
Patches posted to the issue tracker on or after Wednesday Jan 29 at
12:00:01am will not be accepted.
Sorry, forgot to specify the time zone: PST, which is GMT -08:00.
Put another way, the submission window closes about 55.5 hours from when
I post
The first release candidate of Python 3.4 will be tagged in about two
weeks. We need to be completely done with the Derby by then. And it's
going to take a while to review and iterate on the patches we've got.
Therefore: I'm going to stop accepting submissions for new patches in
two days.
26.01.14 19:00, Vajrasky Kok написав(ла):
So I hope my argument is convincing enough. We need to fix this bug in
Python 2.7, 3.3, and 3.4, by making `times` argument sent via
positional or keyword in itertools.repeat ALWAYS means the same thing,
which is 0 repetitions.
If this is not possible, a
On 01/26/2014 09:59 AM, francis wrote:
> On 01/26/2014 03:42 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>
>> I think that is an over-simplification. The argument unpacking was handy
>> in a number of situations where *args wouldn't suffice:
>>
>>lambda (px, py), (qx, qy): ((px - qx) ** 2 + (py - qy) ** 2)
Dear comrades,
I would like to bring to your attention my disagreement with Larry
Hastings in this ticket: http://bugs.python.org/issue19145
(Inconsistent behaviour in itertools.repeat when using negative
times).
Let me give you the context:
>>> from itertools import repeat
>>> repeat('a')
repea
On 01/26/2014 03:42 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
I think that is an over-simplification. The argument unpacking was handy
in a number of situations where *args wouldn't suffice:
lambda (px, py), (qx, qy): ((px - qx) ** 2 + (py - qy) ** 2) ** 0.5
IIRC, the original reason for the change was
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:30:24 -0800
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 5:29 AM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
>
> > Nick also suggested to document
> > our deprecation policy in PEP 5 (Guidelines for Language Evolution:
> > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0005/ ).
>
> Here's a few though
On 26 January 2014 11:57, Eric Snow wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Is there a reason to have separate "importlib" (toplevel) and
>> "importlib.util" namespaces?
>
> As to why they are separate, you'll need to ask Brett. I believe it's
> meant to keep the top n
27 matches
Mail list logo
