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,
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
