On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> I don't object (this had never occurred to me), but is Python on
> Windows fully functioning when the registry is entirely ignored?
I believe so. The path of executable and Python DLL are used to initialize
sys.path, which should be eno
Hello,
I noticed that if Py_IgnoreEnvironmentFlag is enabled, the Windows registry
is still used to initialize sys.path during startup. Is this an oversight or
intentional?
I assumed one of the intentions of this flag is to prevent embedded Python
interpreters from being affected by other Python
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>
> (and no, adding things like nonlocal to 2.7 doesn't making porting of
> a real application or library any easier, since the existing application
> or library simply doesn't use that keyword. In fact, no change to 2.x
> can reasonably simp
It seems like some code in safelite passes a file object to
isinstance. By overriding the builtin isinstance function I can get
access to the original file object and create a new one. Here is the
code I used:
from safelite import FileReader
_real_file = None
def _new_isinstance(obj,types):
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> py2exe is explicitly supported (via the freezeSupport() call). That may work
> for the embedded case as well, or it may be something that can be addressed
> by modifying sys.executable.
Thanks for the tip Nick. Adding the f
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to renew the discussion now that "there is a PEP" to see
> if there are any outstanding things people would like to get resolved.
> I chose to continue to push it for 2.6 / 3.0 inclusion due to feedback
> both
Hello,
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, so I apologize ahead
of time if it is.
I was just curious as to why cStringIO objects don't implement the
buffer interface. cStringIO objects seem similar to string and array
objects, and those support the buffer protocol. Is there a reason
On 2/12/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is even more syntactic sugar really what Python really needs?
Yes, I need my fix!!!
my 2 cents:
I'm +1 on either the '.(name)' or '.[name]' syntax. I'm leaning more
towards the parentheses though. I don't really buy into the argument
that
