"Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There should be some greater care exercised in closing old bugs.
Possibly. OTOH, we have something like 900 open bugs to work on, and
it's not like bug reporters can't re-open a bug report if they think
it's been closed in error (this has happene
I hope that I've got the rewrite of PEP 343 to include generator
extensions right now. I've chosen the 'with' keyword. Please review
here; I think this is ready for review by the unwashed masses. :-)
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0343.html
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.o
> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0343.html
I should add that IMO this obsoletes PEP 288 and PEP 325; I plan to
reject those when PEP 343 is accepted. I've already withdrawn PEP 340.
PEP 342 is separate (but I'll probably present it together with PEP
343).
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http
At 08:16 AM 6/1/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>I hope that I've got the rewrite of PEP 343 to include generator
>extensions right now. I've chosen the 'with' keyword. Please review
>here; I think this is ready for review by the unwashed masses. :-)
>
> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0343.ht
[Guido van Rossum]
> > http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0343.html
[Phillip J. Eby]
> Looks great. A few questions/comments:
>
> * What's the rationale for raising TypeError from close()? Wasn't
> RuntimeError discussed previously for that role? (and it's also used by
> the with_template exampl
Nice going! But ...
Could we extend the 'try' syntax for this instead of introducing
'with'? If I look at the translation it an augmented 'try'.
with EXPR as VAR:
BLOCK1
except EXCEPTION:
BLOCK2
could then be translated to
abc = EXPR
Eric Nieuwland wrote:
> If I look at the translation it an augmented 'try'.
> with EXPR as VAR:
> BLOCK1
> except EXCEPTION:
> BLOCK2
Oops, that should read:
try EXPR as VAR:
BLOCK1
except EXCEPTION:
BLOCK2
At 08:46 PM 6/1/2005 +0200, Eric Nieuwland wrote:
>Nice going! But ...
>
>Could we extend the 'try' syntax for this instead of introducing
>'with'? If I look at the translation it an augmented 'try'.
> with EXPR as VAR:
> BLOCK1
> except EXCEPTION:
>
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > IMO, user input (or
> > the full numeric strings in a text data file) is sacred and presumably
> > done for a reason -- the explicitly requested digits should not be
> > throw-away without good reason.
>
> I still don't understand what's so special about the
> input
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 08:46 PM 6/1/2005 +0200, Eric Nieuwland wrote:
>> If I look at the translation it an augmented 'try'.
>> with EXPR as VAR:
>> BLOCK1
>> except EXCEPTION:
>> BLOCK2
>> could then be translated to
>
> -1, too confusing.
A mat
At 10:00 PM 6/1/2005 +0200, Eric Nieuwland wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > At 08:46 PM 6/1/2005 +0200, Eric Nieuwland wrote:
> >> If I look at the translation it an augmented 'try'.
> >> with EXPR as VAR:
> >> BLOCK1
> >> except EXCEPTION:
> >> BLOC
On 6/1/05, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Old age and a missing OP is not sufficient reason to close a bug.
>
> But if closing a bug is an effective way of kicking things into life
> again...
I'm seeing this effect in a lot of bugs I closed as old ones. I think
that using the mail
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 344 open ( +2) / 2845 closed ( +6) / 3189 total ( +8)
Bugs: 916 open (-20) / 5014 closed (+40) / 5930 total (+20)
RFE : 191 open ( +2) / 163 closed ( +4) / 354 total ( +6)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Optimizat
> > Old age and a missing OP is not sufficient reason to close a bug.
> >
> > But if closing a bug is an effective way of kicking things into life
> > again...
>
> I'm seeing this effect in a lot of bugs I closed as old ones.
That means they shouldn't have been closed and that we almost lost a v
14 matches
Mail list logo
