Smith wrote:
> The problem with areclose(), however, is that it
> only solves one part of the problem that needs to be solved
> if two fp's *are* going to be compared: if you are going to
> check if a < b you would need to do something like
>
> not areclose(a,b) and a < b
No, no, no.
If
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 01:09 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> (but will there be a 2.6? isn't it time to start hacking on 3.0?)
We know at least there will never be a 2.10, so I think we still have
time.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
__
I'm in the process of summarizing the dicussion on the bytes object
and an idea just occured to me. Imagine that I want to write code
that deals with strings and I want to be maximally compatible with
P3k. It would be nice if I could add:
from __future__ import unicode_strings
and have stri
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:20:16 -0800, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm actually assuming to put this off until 2.6 anyway.
>
>On 2/15/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thomas Wouters wrote:
>>
>> > > After reading some of the discussion, and seen some of the arguments,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Tim Parkin wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>
> no, you're not qualified. yet, someone gave you total control over the
> future of python.org, and there's no way to make you give it up, despite
> the fact that you're over a year late and the stuff you've delivered
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:36:35 + (UTC), Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'm in the process of summarizing the dicussion on the bytes object
>and an idea just occured to me. Imagine that I want to write code
>that deals with strings and I want to be maximally compatible with
>P3k.
On 2/15/06, Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm in the process of summarizing the dicussion on the bytes object
> and an idea just occured to me. Imagine that I want to write code
> that deals with strings and I want to be maximally compatible with
> P3k. It would be nice if I could
I don't think this message is on-topic for python-dev. There are lots
of great places to discuss the design of the python web site, but the
list for developers doesn't seem like a good place for it. Do we need
a different list for people to gripe^H^H^H^H^H discuss the web site?
Jeremy
On 2/15/0
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:23:56PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > from __future__ import unicode_strings
> Didn't we have a command-line option to do this? I believe it was
> removed because nobody could see the point. (Or am I hallucinating?
> After several days of non-stop discussing by
Greg Ewing wrote:
> I think you don't understand what an encoding is. Unicode
> strings don't *have* an encoding, because theyre not encoded!
> Encoding is what happens when you go from a unicode string
> to something else.
Ah.. ok, my mental picture was a bit off. I had this reversed somewhat.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Anyway, I'm now convinced that bytes should act as an array of ints,
> where the ints are restricted to range(0, 256) but have type int.
range(0, 255)?
--
Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"19. A language
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> So how about
> openbytes? This clearly links the resulting object with the bytes
> type, which is mutually reassuring.
That looks quite nice.
Another thought -- what is going to happen to os.open?
Will it change to return bytes, or will there be a new
os.openbytes?
--
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 02:43:02AM +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:23:56PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > > from __future__ import unicode_strings
>
> > Didn't we have a command-line option to do this? I believe it was
> > removed because nobody could see the p
On Feb 15, 2006, at 6:35 PM, Aahz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, I'm now convinced that bytes should act as an array of ints,
>> where the ints are restricted to range(0, 256) but have type int.
>
> range(0, 255)?
No, Guido was correct. range(0, 256) is [0,
This could be a replacement for PEP 332. At least I hope it can
serve to summarize the previous discussion and help focus on the
currently undecided issues.
I'm too tired to dig up the rules for assigning it a PEP number.
Also, there are probably silly typos, etc. Sorry.
Neil
PEP: XXX
Title:
On 2/15/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > So how about
> > openbytes? This clearly links the resulting object with the bytes
> > type, which is mutually reassuring.
>
> That looks quite nice.
>
> Another thought -- what is going to happen to os.open?
> Will it
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> E.g. bytes.openfile(...) and unicode.openfile(...) (in 3.0
> renamed to str.openfile())
This seems wrong to me, because it creates an unnecessary
dependency of the bytes/str/unicode types on the file type.
These types should remain strictly focused on being just
containers
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> If we go with two functions, I'd much rather hang them off of the file
> type object then add two new builtins. I really do think file.bytes()
> and file.text() (a.k.a. open.bytes() and open.text()) is better than
> opentext() or openbytes().
I'm worried about feeping creat
Jason Orendorff wrote:
> Also the pseudo-encodings ('hex',
> 'rot13', 'zip', 'uu', etc.) generally scare me.
I think these will have to cease being implemented as
encodings in 3.0. They should really never have been
in the first place.
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +---
Trent Mick wrote:
> On Windows you download an MSI (it ends up in your browser downloads
> folder), it starts the installation, and the end of the installation it
> starts the app for you.
Which then conveniently inserts a virus into my system.
No, thanks. (Okay up until that last bit, though.)
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 399 open ( +8) / 3042 closed ( +4) / 3441 total (+12)
Bugs: 923 open ( +8) / 5553 closed (+13) / 6476 total (+21)
RFE : 209 open ( +0) / 198 closed ( +1) / 407 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
urllib pr
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2006, at 6:35 PM, Aahz wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'm now convinced that bytes should act as an array of ints,
>>> where the ints are restricted to range(0, 256) but have type int.
>>
>> range(0, 255
Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Orendorff wrote:
>
> > Also the pseudo-encodings ('hex',
> > 'rot13', 'zip', 'uu', etc.) generally scare me.
>
> I think these will have to cease being implemented as
> encodings in 3.0. They should really never have been
> in the first place.
I wo
On 2/15/06, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I haven't been following the AST stuff closely enough, but I'm not crazy
> about putting access to this in the sys module. It seems like it
> clutters that up with a name that will be rarely used by the average
> Python programmer.
Agreed.
On 2/15/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (is the xmlplus/xmlcore issue still an issue, btw?)
What issue are you talking about?
n
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubsc
On 2/15/06, Alain Poirier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - isn't the current implementation of itertools.tee (cache of previous
> generated values) incompatible with the new possibility to feed a
> generator (PEP 342) ?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. What is the issue?
n
___
On 2/15/06, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
> How about we arrange for some open space time at PyCon to discuss?
> Unfortunately, the compiler talk isn't until the last day and I can't
> stay for sprints. It would be better to have the talk, then the open
> space, then the sprint.
On Feb 15, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 09:17 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Regarding open vs. opentext, I'm still not sure. I don't want to
>> generalize from the openbytes precedent to openstr or openunicode
>> (especially since the former is wrong in 2.x
On 2/15/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/15/06, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't been following the AST stuff closely enough, but I'm not crazy
> > about putting access to this in the sys module. It seems like it
> > clutters that up with a name that will
On 2/15/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
> > Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> One protects us from ending up with an unusable AST since
> >> the seralization can keep the original AST around and if the version
> >> passed back in from Python code is junk it can be tossed and
I'm still catching up on the hundreds of python-dev messages from the
last couple of days, but a quick note first that I'm ok to do release
management for 2.5
Anthony
--
Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
___
On 2/15/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Wouters wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 07:28:36PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >
> >> On the 'unusable AST' front, if AST transformation code creates illegal
> >> output, then the main thing is to raise an exception complaining about
Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> from __future__ import unicode_strings
>
>> Didn't we have a command-line option to do this? I believe it was
>> removed because nobody could see the point. (Or am I hallucinating?
>> After several days of non-stop discussing bytes that must be
>>
On 2/15/06, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Still few questions... one of developers/commiters reviews patch and commit
> it? Few developers has to review single patch?
One developer can review and commit a patch. Sometimes we request
more input from other developers or intere
on 16.02.2006 06:59 Alex Martelli said the following:
> On Feb 15, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 09:17 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding open vs. opentext, I'm still not sure. I don't want to
>>> generalize from the openbytes precedent to openstr or
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:57:26 -0800, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2/15/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> > So how about
>> > openbytes? This clearly links the resulting object with the bytes
>> > type, which is mutually reassuring.
>>
>> That
101 - 136 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
