On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> 2014-06-26 13:04 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
>> For the same reason, I agree with Victor that we should ditch the
>> threading-disabled builds. It's too much of a hassle for no actual,
>> practical benefit. People who want a threadless unicod
Hello,
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:49:40 +1000
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
> > For the same reason, I agree with Victor that we should ditch the
> > threading-disabled builds. It's too much of a hassle for no actual,
> > practical benefit. People
2014-06-26 13:04 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
> For the same reason, I agree with Victor that we should ditch the
> threading-disabled builds. It's too much of a hassle for no actual,
> practical benefit. People who want a threadless unicodeless Python can
> install Python 1.5.2 for all I care.
By t
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> For the same reason, I agree with Victor that we should ditch the
> threading-disabled builds. It's too much of a hassle for no actual,
> practical benefit. People who want a threadless unicodeless Python can
> install Python 1.5.2 for all I
Le 25/06/2014 19:28, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
OK, *that* sounds like an excellent reason to keep the Unicode disabled
builds functional, and make sure they stay that way with a buildbot: to
help make sure we're not accidentally running afoul of the implicit
interoperability between str and unicode
26.06.14 02:28, Nick Coghlan написав(ла):
OK, *that* sounds like an excellent reason to keep the Unicode disabled
builds functional, and make sure they stay that way with a buildbot: to
help make sure we're not accidentally running afoul of the implicit
interoperability between str and unicode wh
On 26 Jun 2014 01:13, "Serhiy Storchaka" wrote:
>
> 25.06.14 16:29, Victor Stinner написав(ла):
>>
>> 2014-06-25 14:58 GMT+02:00 Serhiy Storchaka :
>>>
>>> Other benefit: patches exposed several bugs in code (mainly errors in
>>> backporting from 3.x).
>>
>>
>> Oh, interesting. Do you have example
25.06.14 16:29, Victor Stinner написав(ла):
2014-06-25 14:58 GMT+02:00 Serhiy Storchaka :
Other benefit: patches exposed several bugs in code (mainly errors in
backporting from 3.x).
Oh, interesting. Do you have examples of such bugs?
In posixpath branches for unicode and str should be rever
2014-06-25 14:58 GMT+02:00 Serhiy Storchaka :
> 24.06.14 22:54, Ned Deily написав(ла):
>
>> Benefit:
>> - Fixes documented feature that may be of benefit to users of Python in
>> applications with very limited memory available, although there aren't
>> any open issues from users requesting this (AF
24.06.14 22:54, Ned Deily написав(ла):
Benefit:
- Fixes documented feature that may be of benefit to users of Python in
applications with very limited memory available, although there aren't
any open issues from users requesting this (AFAIK). No benefit to the
overwhelming majority of Python use
25.06.14 00:03, Jim J. Jewett написав(ла):
It would be good to fix the tests (and actual library issues).
Unfortunately, some of the specifically proposed changes (such as
defining and using _unicode instead of unicode within python code)
look to me as though they would trigger problems in the no
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Aye, in this case, I'm in the "officially deprecate the feature" camp.
Definitely preferable to the suggestion to remove the configure flag.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
h
On 25 Jun 2014 07:05, "Ethan Furman" wrote:
>
> On 06/24/2014 12:54 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, we are committed to maintaining
>> Python 2.7 for multiple years but that doesn't mean we have to fix every
>> open issue or even most open issues. Any or all of the above costs may
>> apply to
On 6/24/2014 4:22 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> I submitted a number of patches which fixes currently broken
> Unicode-disabled build of Python 2.7 (built with --disable-unicode
> configure option). I suppose this was broken in 2.7 when C
> implementation of the io module was introduced.
It has
On 06/24/2014 12:54 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
Yes, we are committed to maintaining
Python 2.7 for multiple years but that doesn't mean we have to fix every
open issue or even most open issues. Any or all of the above costs may
apply to any changes we make. For many of our users, the best
maintenanc
In article
<1403625970.6550.133062453.693ec...@webmail.messagingengine.com>,
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> If Serhiy wants to spend his time supporting this arcane feature, he can
> do that. It doesn't really seem worth risking regressions to do this,
> though.
That's why I'm concerned about apply
If Serhiy wants to spend his time supporting this arcane feature, he can
do that. It doesn't really seem worth risking regressions to do this,
though.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014, at 01:55, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know anyone building Python without Unicode. I would prefer to
> modify co
On 6/24/2014 4:22 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
I submitted a number of patches which fixes currently broken
Unicode-disabled build of Python 2.7 (built with --disable-unicode
configure option). I suppose this was broken in 2.7 when C
implementation of the io module was introduced.
http://bugs.pyt
24.06.14 14:50, Victor Stinner написав(ла):
2014-06-24 13:04 GMT+02:00 Skip Montanaro :
I can't see any reason to make a backwards-incompatible change to
Python 2 to only support Unicode. You're bound to break somebody's
setup. Wouldn't it be better to fix bugs as Serhiy has done?
According to
2014-06-24 13:04 GMT+02:00 Skip Montanaro :
> I can't see any reason to make a backwards-incompatible change to
> Python 2 to only support Unicode. You're bound to break somebody's
> setup. Wouldn't it be better to fix bugs as Serhiy has done?
According to the long list of issues, I don't think th
Le 24/06/2014 07:04, Skip Montanaro a écrit :
I can't see any reason to make a backwards-incompatible change to
Python 2 to only support Unicode. You're bound to break somebody's
setup.
Apparently, that setup would already have been broken for years.
Regards
Antoine.
___
I can't see any reason to make a backwards-incompatible change to
Python 2 to only support Unicode. You're bound to break somebody's
setup. Wouldn't it be better to fix bugs as Serhiy has done?
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https
Hi,
I don't know anyone building Python without Unicode. I would prefer to
modify configure to raise an error, and drop #ifdef in the code. (Stop
supporting building Python 2 without Unicode.)
Building Python 2 without Unicode support is not an innocent change.
Python is moving strongly to Unicod
I submitted a number of patches which fixes currently broken
Unicode-disabled build of Python 2.7 (built with --disable-unicode
configure option). I suppose this was broken in 2.7 when C
implementation of the io module was introduced.
http://bugs.python.org/issue21833 -- main patch which fixes
24 matches
Mail list logo
