Hi, thanks to your report.
> As far as I understand, if you have a custom tp_dealloc, you *have* to
> call PyObject_CallFinalizerFromDealloc in order to get your tp_finalize
> called. Is this correct?
Sorry, I'm not expert of Object finalization process.
But If my understanding is correct, you'r
I believe that the current status is:
- assigning None isn't treated specially – it does mask any underlying
values (which I think is what we want)
- there is currently no way to "unmask"
- but it's generally agreed that there should be a way to do that, at least
in some cases, to handle the sav
On 08/27/2017 11:02 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
Hi Jim, it seems like each time you reply you change the subject line and start
a new thread. Very few others are doing
this (e.g. Yury when releasing a new version). Would it be possible for you to
preserve the threading like others?
I must admi
Hi Jim, it seems like each time you reply you change the subject line and
start a new thread. Very few others are doing this (e.g. Yury when
releasing a new version). Would it be possible for you to preserve the
threading like others?
--Chris
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:08 AM Jim J. Jewett wrote:
Does setting an ImplicitScopeVar to None set the value to None, or just
remove it?
If it removes it, does that effectively unmask a previously masked value?
If it really sets to None, then is there a way to explicitly unmask
previously masked values?
Perhaps the initial constructor should requir
I think there is general consensus that this should go in a module other
than sys. (At least a submodule.)
The specific names are still To Be Determined, but I suspect seeing the
functions and objects as part of a named module will affect what works.
So I am requesting that the next iteration jus
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 04:13:24PM -0700, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Elvis Pranskevichus
>> wrote:
>> > What we are talking about here is variable scope leaking up the call
>> > stack. I think this is a bad pa
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:21:44PM -0400, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> >> This generic caching approach is similar to what the current C
> >> implementation of ``decimal`` does to cache the the current decimal
> >> context, and has similar performan
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 04:13:24PM -0700, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Elvis Pranskevichus
> wrote:
> > What we are talking about here is variable scope leaking up the call
> > stack. I think this is a bad pattern. For decimal context-like uses
> > of the EC you sho
