[ Mailed to python-dev and python-list, as that should cover most of the users ;P ]There was a slight disruption on mail.python.org this morning. For about three and a half hours, it was rejecting most of its mail with the message:
Client host [] blocked using singlehop.dsbl.org; Your mail has
Jim Jewett wrote:
> Ian reproposed:
>
> class Quitter(object):
> def __init__(self, name):
> self.name = name
> def __repr__(self):
> return 'Use %s() to exit' % self.name
> def __call__(self):
> raise SystemExit()
>
> The one
Thomas Wouters wrote:
> [ Mailed to python-dev and python-list, as that should cover most of the
> users ;P ]
>
> There was a slight disruption on mail.python.org this morning. For about
> three and a half hours, it was rejecting most of its mail with the message:
>
> Client host [] blocked u
On 3/8/06, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Wouters wrote:> There was a slight disruption on mail.python.org this morning. Has this also to do with that http://svn.python.org/
doesn't work?No, it doesn't, although my fixing that (almost) is what made me notice mail.python.org wasn't
On 3/8/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
svn.python.org
should be working fine for SVN checkouts and the like, it's just viewcvs that isn't working yet. I'll look at it.Actually, it all seems to work fine now. Let me know of any specific problems if you see any :)
-- Thomas Wouters <[
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:37:47AM +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> Raising SystemExit("quit() called") has an additional benefit (although the
> wording could use some work):
>
> >>> raise SystemExit("quit() called")
> quit() called
>
> (At least, I consider that a benefit :-)
It has a bad sid
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:37:47AM +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>
>>Raising SystemExit("quit() called") has an additional benefit (although the
>>wording could use some work):
>>
>>
>raise SystemExit("quit() called")
>>
>>quit() called
>>
>>(At least, I consider that a
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:39:51PM +, Steve Holden wrote:
> Oleg Broytmann wrote:
> raise SystemExit("quit() called")
> >
> > quit() called
> > Error!
> >
> I should imagine the use cases for running an interactive Python shell
> as a part of a script are fairly few and far between, thou
On 3/7/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 from me. Only change I would make is pass an argument to
> SystemExit() such as "%s() called", although the chances of this
> exception being caught is very slim.
>
>
> Raising SystemExit("quit() called") has an additional benefit (although
I have a patch for this now -- python.org/sf/1445739.
Please review.
--Guido
On 3/3/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few days ago there were rumbling noises that requiring __exit__ to
> re-raise the exception (as I amended PEP 343 at the time) could lead
> to easily-missed bug
Have we reached final agreement on the 2.5 release schedule? The last
message was on Feb 15, which said:
alpha 1: May 6, 2006 [planned]
alpha 2: June 3, 2006 [planned]
alpha 3: July 1, 2006 [planned]
beta 1: July 29, 2006 [planned]
beta 2: August 26, 2006 [planned]
rc 1:
If anything, we're probably going to do it earlier even.
All schedules are tentative, BTW; the PSF is not responsible for
losses due to schedule changes. :-)
--Guido
On 3/8/06, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have we reached final agreement on the 2.5 release schedule? The last
> message was
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bad idea, as several pointed out -- quit() should return a 0 exit
> to the shell.
I like the idea of making "quit" callable. One small concern I have
is that people will use it in scripts to exit (rather than one of
the other existing ways to exit).
Neil Schemenauer wrote:
>>Bad idea, as several pointed out -- quit() should return a 0 exit
>>to the shell.
>
>
> I like the idea of making "quit" callable. One small concern I have
> is that people will use it in scripts to exit (rather than one of
> the other existing ways to exit). OTOH, may
[Tim]
>> Neal plugged another hole later, but-- alas --I have seen the same shy
>> failure since then on WinXP. One of the most recent buildbot test
>> runs saw it too, on a non-Windows box:
>>
>> http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/trunk/g5%20osx.3%20trunk/builds/204/step-test/0
>>
>> test_socket_
Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> >>Bad idea, as several pointed out -- quit() should return a 0 exit
> >>to the shell.
> >
> >
> > I like the idea of making "quit" callable. One small concern I have
> > is that people will use it in scripts to exit (rather t
Hi,
I know, PyCon's just been, but not many bugs were closed and
there really ought to be some issues resolved before 2.4.3 happens.
The number of open bugs is again crawling to 900.
I myself are looking at many bugs and patches over time, but with
most of them I can't decide alone what to do. Wr
On 3/8/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know, PyCon's just been, but not many bugs were closed and
> there really ought to be some issues resolved before 2.4.3 happens.
> The number of open bugs is again crawling to 900.
>
> I myself are looking at many bugs and patches over
On 3/8/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know, PyCon's just been, but not many bugs were closed and
> there really ought to be some issues resolved before 2.4.3 happens.
> The number of open bugs is again crawling to 900.
>
> I myself are looking at many bugs and patches over time, bu
On 3/8/06, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/8/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know, PyCon's just been, but not many bugs were closed and
> > there really ought to be some issues resolved before 2.4.3 happens.
> > The number of open bugs is again crawling to 900.
> >
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
>IDEs. Edit a code in an editor, run python -i script.py, investigate the
> environment, return to the editor, get error message.
An IDE is likely to want to catch SystemExits in the
debugged script and handle them specially anyway.
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept
We seem to have a consensus. Is anybody working on a patch yet?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mai
I’m finishing up a patch for bug 1441408. I had to change the asdl definitions
which in turn caused a failure in test_ast.py. A comment in the file indicates
that EVERYTHING BELOW IS GENERATED # and has a definition for Slice()
that is no longer valid. Can anyone tell me how this is gen
[Georg Brandl]
> I know, PyCon's just been, but not many bugs were closed
Ya, it was very much a development sprint this year -- "new features".
> and there really ought to be some issues resolved before 2.4.3 happens.
> The number of open bugs is again crawling to 900.
>
> I myself are looking a
I think it would be a good idea to follow the Plone project and try
to encourage new developers by offering assistance to get them up
and running. AFAIK, we've done that for the other bug days but it
might help to publish the fact that no prior Python development
experience is necessary.
Neil
I'm interested in how builtins could be more efficient. I've read over
some of the PEPs having to do with making global variables more
efficient (search for "global"):
http://www.python.org/doc/essays/pepparade.html
But I think the problem can be simplified by focusing strictly on
builtins.
O
Steve Holden wrote:
> Contrast with the bleeding obvious:
>
> level = 0
> if "absolute_import" in self.futures:
> level = -1
>
> regards
> Steve
>
The issue that spawned the necessity of a ternary operator in the first
place was that this syntax is not usable at all in quit
[Fredrik Lundh]
>> (but alright, as long as you don't call me "Fred"...)
[Steve Holden]
> Did I *ever* do that? That would have been an embarrassing slip ;-)
I know I'm extremely late, but there should be a POTF (Pun Of The
Fortnight) from now on.
A member of the Mund-SIG
__
28 matches
Mail list logo
