://bugs.python.org/6815. If you
follow that link, it redirects to http://legacy.python.org/sf/ and you
get message: You did not provide a report number. The link should be
http://bugs.python.org/issue6815.
Cheers,
Vajrasky Kok
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> --canonicalize is not strict. --canonicalize-existing is most strict and
> --canonicalize-missing is least strict. When you have a function which have
> non-strict behavior (--canonicalize), you can implement a wrapper with
> strict behavio
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> While it's a bug, it's a very minor bug. As Python 3.4 release manager, my
> position is: Python 3.4 is in beta, so let's not change semantics for
> purity's sakes now. I'm -0.5 on adding times=None right now, and until we
> do we can'
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Sure, just adjust the number to fit the available memory (here, 2**29
> does the trick).
>
I get your point. But strangely enough, I can still recover from
list(repeat('a', 2**29)). It only slows down my computer. I can ^Z the
application
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> I apologize for not making myself clear. But that's part of what I meant,
> yes: we should preserve the existing behavior of times=-1 when passed in by
> position or by keyword. However, we should *also* add a deprecation warning
> when
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I would say not backport at all. The security threat is highly
> theoretical. If someone blindly accepts user values for repeat(), the
> user value can just as well be a very large positive with similar
> effects (e.g. 2**31).
>
I can not
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
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
>
> The contestants so far:
>
> Contestant 1: "Add .clinic.h"
>
> foo.c -> foo.c.clinic.h
> foo.h -> foo.h.clinic.h
+0
>
> Contestant 2: "Add .ac.h"
>
> foo.c -> foo.c.ac.h
> foo.h -> foo.h.ac.h
+1
>
> Contestant 3: "Add .clinic"
>
> foo.c -> foo.c.clinic
> foo.h -> foo.h.clinic
+0
>
> Contes
Dear friends,
>>> from itertools import repeat
>>> list(repeat('a', 3))
['a', 'a', 'a']
>>> list(repeat('a', 0))
[]
>>> repeat.__doc__
'repeat(object [,times]) -> create an iterator which returns the
object\nfor the specified number of times. If not specified, returns
the object\nendlessly.'
If
Dear friends,
This is related with ticket 19717: "resolve() fails when the path
doesn't exist".
Assuming /home/cutecat exists but not /home/cutecat/aa,
what is the desired output of
Path('/home/cutecat/aa/bb/cc').resolve(strict=False)?
Should it be:
"/home/cutecat" (the existed path only),
"/h
//bugs.python.org/issue19984
Vajrasky Kok
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
)->tp_name);
So is it %.400s or %.80s or %s? I vote for %s.
Other thing is which one is more preferable? Py_TYPE(value)->tp_name
or value->ob_type->tp_name? I vote for Py_TYPE(value)->tp_name.
Or this is just a matter of taste?
Thank you.
Vajrasky Kok
_
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:06 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>
> Can you please phrase your question more explicit? What is it that
> you want to be done before writing unit tests for the spwd module?
I am asking buildbot of Linux/Unix/BSD with root account. Do we have it now?
>
> Anybody could run
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>
> Not helpful.
>
> I'm in meetings/training/traveling all week, but I'll get another Windows
> build slave up within the next few days. I used to have a spare desktop box
> that ran a build slave as admin so it would exercise the os.symlink cod
Greetings, comrades!
Having handled these two issues personally:
http://bugs.python.org/issue19877
- test related with symlink fails on Windows Vista with administrator
account (in Windows NT 6, only account in administrator group can
create symlink)
http://bugs.python.org/issue18678
- bug in spw
17 matches
Mail list logo
