On Sep 12, 2017, at 12:18, Larry Hastings wrote:
> On 09/12/2017 02:49 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> Note: The PEP is not yet rejected on python.org, it will be done at
>> the next cron job run.
> My understanding is that the docs are built once a day via cron job, but the
> PEPs are built every t
On 09/12/2017 02:49 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Note: The PEP is not yet rejected on python.org, it will be done at
the next cron job run.
My understanding is that the docs are built once a day via cron job, but
the PEPs are built every time the repo changes thanks to Travis CI. So
it should
Hi,
In March 2015, I proposed the PEP 490 to chain implicitly C exceptions
by default:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0490/
The discussion on python-dev was quickly in favor of keeping the
status quo: don't chain C exceptions by default, but only do that
explicitly where it makes sense.
I
Hi,
2015-06-23 0:10 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan :
> Chiming in again since I wasn't clear on this aspect last time: I'd also be
> +1 on parallel APIs that handle the chaining.
>
> Since the auto-chaining idea seems largely unpopular, that suggests to me
> that a parallel set of APIs would be the most r
On 23 Jun 2015 04:12, "Ethan Furman" wrote:
>
> -1 on auto-chaining.
>
> +1 on chaining helper functions so it's dirt-simple.
Chiming in again since I wasn't clear on this aspect last time: I'd also be
+1 on parallel APIs that handle the chaining.
Since the auto-chaining idea seems largely unpop
-1 on auto-chaining.
+1 on chaining helper functions so it's dirt-simple.
--
~Ethan~
___
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/
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 21:16:48 +0200
"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
> On 20.06.2015 09:30, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I didn't get much feedback on this PEP. Since the Python 3.6 branch is
> > open (default), it's probably better to push such change in the
> > beginning of the 3.6 cycle, to catc
On 2015-06-20 3:16 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 20.06.2015 09:30, Victor Stinner wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I didn't get much feedback on this PEP. Since the Python 3.6 branch is
>open (default), it's probably better to push such change in the
>beginning of the 3.6 cycle, to catch issues earlier.
>
>Are you
On 20.06.2015 09:30, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I didn't get much feedback on this PEP. Since the Python 3.6 branch is
> open (default), it's probably better to push such change in the
> beginning of the 3.6 cycle, to catch issues earlier.
>
> Are you ok to chain exceptions at C level by def
On 20 June 2015 at 19:00, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> And that is the crux in your proposal: you're changing the default
> behaviour into its opposite. In order to do that, it should be reasonably
> likely that the current standard behaviour is not intended in more than
> half of the cases. I find that
Victor Stinner schrieb am 20.06.2015 um 09:30:
> Are you ok to chain exceptions at C level by default?
I agree that it can be a bit non-obvious where exceptions are chained and
when they are not and my guess is that most C code simply doesn't take care
of chaining exceptions at all. If only becaus
Hi,
I didn't get much feedback on this PEP. Since the Python 3.6 branch is
open (default), it's probably better to push such change in the
beginning of the 3.6 cycle, to catch issues earlier.
Are you ok to chain exceptions at C level by default?
Relatedi issue: https://bugs.python.org/issue23763
12 matches
Mail list logo
