Am 09.07.2010 02:35, schrieb MRAB:
>> That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what happens if you take an
>> existing Python installation's re module, move it aside, and drop
>> regex in its place as "re.py".
>>
>> Doing that and then running Python's own test suite as well as the
>> test suites o
Hello there.
I´m in the process of upgrading code to use python 2.7 and the new Py_Buffer
objects. I have, however, come across an inconsistency in the documentation,
both in the pep and the python docs, with the actual implementation.
In addition to the different function signatures mentioned i
Georg Brandl writes:
> Am 08.07.2010 17:44, schrieb Martin Geisler:
>> Steve Holden writes:
>>
>>> Martin Geisler wrote:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" writes:
> Just ask Martin, there are too many possibilities here to worry
> about. If maybe we want it, and he is willing to contrib
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Yes, but[tm] it is not always easy to find the correct module to look for
> __docformat__ when given an object.
True. That PEP was written before decorators were common, in
particular. That's changed the landscape in substantial ways.
It ma
In addition, the PyBufferProcs documentation has not bee updated to reflect the
new buffer interface.
From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org
[mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org] On Behalf Of
Kristján Valur Jónsson
Sent: 9. júlí 2010 08:39
To: Python-De
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> I created an svn branch because I think that it's easier to review short
> commits than one unique huge patch. The branch also helps me to share the
> branch between different computers, and allow other people to review the
> commits (and/or
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 08:38:53 +
Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
>
> In short, what the documentation fails to mention (and the pep) is whether
> posessing a
> locked Py_Buffer structure also constitutes holding a reference to the
> exporting object?
It does.
> I think it does, but is this gu
On Jul 07, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:46, Antoine Pitrou
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 14:12:17 -0400
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> On Jul 07, 2010, at 07:30 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>>
>>> >Overall, I think that we can make stdlib docstrings valid reST --
>>>
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:52 PM, MRAB wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I re-implemented the re module, adding new features and speed
> improvements. It's available at:
>
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/regex
>
> under the name "regex" so that it can be tried alongside "re".
>
> I'd be interested in any comme
While looking at a parser module issue
(http://bugs.python.org/issue9154) I noticed that Python's grammar
doesn't permit trailing commas after keyword-only args. That is,
def f(a, b,): pass
is valid syntax, while
def f(*, a, b,): pass
is not. I was just curious whether the latter was
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:06 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:52 PM, MRAB wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I re-implemented the re module, adding new features and speed
>> improvements. It's available at:
>>
>> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/regex
>>
>> under the name "regex" so tha
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2010-07-02 - 2010-07-09)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
2813 open (+52) / 18217 closed (+15) / 21030 total (+67)
Open issues with patches: 1133
Ave
On 7/9/10 10:40 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
While looking at a parser module issue
(http://bugs.python.org/issue9154) I noticed that Python's grammar
doesn't permit trailing commas after keyword-only args. That is,
def f(a, b,): pass
is valid syntax, while
def f(*, a, b,): pass
is n
Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 02:23:40PM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > > Is this is valid ftp url?
> > >
> > > # file://ftp.example.com/blah.txt (an ftp URL)
> > >
> > > My answer is no. When we have the scheme specifically mentioned as
> > > file:// it is no point in consi
anatoly techtonik wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:52 PM, MRAB wrote:
Hi all,
I re-implemented the re module, adding new features and speed
improvements. It's available at:
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/regex
under the name "regex" so that it can be tried alongside "re".
I'd be interested
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:41, Bill Janssen wrote:
> So, FTP is *not* the "default protocol". On the other hand, if
> actually begins with "ftp.", it's a pretty good guess that FTP will
> work.
Actually, FTP *is* the default protocol for most URLs with hostnames in
urllib.py.
urllib.open_file
Am 09.07.2010 18:36, schrieb Eric Smith:
> On 7/9/10 10:40 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
>> While looking at a parser module issue
>> (http://bugs.python.org/issue9154) I noticed that Python's grammar
>> doesn't permit trailing commas after keyword-only args. That is,
>>
>> def f(a, b,): pass
>>
To be clear, Python 2.x's urllib.urlopen() has this issue; 3.1's
urllib.request.urlopen() rejects non-local hosts in a file URL.
--
Tim Lesher
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscr
Tim Lesher wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:41, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
> > So, FTP is *not* the "default protocol". On the other hand, if
> > actually begins with "ftp.", it's a pretty good guess that FTP will
> > work.
>
>
> Actually, FTP *is* the default protocol for most URLs with hostn
On 9 July 2010 19:04, Bill Janssen wrote:
> If we want to perpetuate these guessing heuristics, I'd suggest using
> FTP if the hostname starts with "ftp.", and HTTP if the hostname starts
> with "www.", and raise an error otherwise.
>From what Tim says, it sounds like guessing is only in 2.x. Rem
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> I'd suggest that
> HTTP is a better (more likely to succeed) default choice in this century.
FTP access also more often reflected the actual file hierarchy of the
machine, so trying that path as a system path is more likely to work
that I'd ex
Paul Moore wrote:
> On 9 July 2010 19:04, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> If we want to perpetuate these guessing heuristics, I'd suggest using
>> FTP if the hostname starts with "ftp.", and HTTP if the hostname starts
>> with "www.", and raise an error otherwise.
>
>>From what Tim says, it sounds like gu
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:28 AM, MRAB wrote:
> anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:52 PM, MRAB wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I re-implemented the re module, adding new features and speed
>>> improvements. It's available at:
>>>
>>> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/regex
>>>
>>>
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 06:28, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 07, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:46, Antoine Pitrou
>>wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 14:12:17 -0400
>>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 07, 2010, at 07:30 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>Overall,
On Jul 09, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>I think this is going to be something our crazy FLUFL likes but the
>kids don't. =)
Don't worry. If you're lucky, you'll get old too. Your eyes will go bad and
your mind will think more about tapioca. By then you might even remember that
the F
On 7/9/2010 10:40 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
While looking at a parser module issue
(http://bugs.python.org/issue9154) I noticed that Python's grammar
doesn't permit trailing commas after keyword-only args. That is,
def f(a, b,): pass
is valid syntax, while
def f(*, a, b,): pass
is
Collin Winter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:28 AM, MRAB wrote:
anatoly techtonik wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:52 PM, MRAB wrote:
Hi all,
I re-implemented the re module, adding new features and speed
improvements. It's available at:
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/regex
under the name
Terry wrote:
> This violates the important principle that allowed def and call arg
> sequences should match to the extent sensible and possible. In this
> sense, the SyntaxError is a bug. So I would fix this now for 3.2 and
> notify the other implementors.
+1 on fixing it - trailing commas are awe
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:35 PM, MRAB wrote:
> I concentrated my efforts on the matching speed because regexes tend to
> be compiled only once, and are cached anyway, so I don't think it's as
> important.
I think most here will agree with that, but it might be good to keep
in mind that the sre imp
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Dino Viehland wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>> This violates the important principle that allowed def and call arg
>> sequences should match to the extent sensible and possible. In this
>> sense, the SyntaxError is a bug. So I would fix this now for 3.2 and
>> notify the ot
Am 09.07.2010 22:26, schrieb Mark Dickinson:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Dino Viehland wrote:
>> Terry wrote:
>>> This violates the important principle that allowed def and call arg
>>> sequences should match to the extent sensible and possible. In this
>>> sense, the SyntaxError is a bug. S
H as long as we aren't the ones writing the check:)
BJ
--Original Message--
From: Fred Drake
Sent: Fri, July 09, 2010 1:16 PM
To: MRAB
Cc: Python-Dev
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] New regex module for 3.2?
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:35 PM, MRAB wrote:
> I concentrated my efforts
On 7/9/2010 4:42 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 09.07.2010 22:26, schrieb Mark Dickinson:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Dino Viehland wrote:
Terry wrote:
This violates the important principle that allowed def and call arg
sequences should match to the extent sensible and possible. In this
sense
On Jul 08, 2010, at 09:14 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>Am 07.07.2010 23:04, schrieb Georg Brandl:
>> I can see where this is going... writing it into PEP 384 would
>> automatically get the change accepted?
I'm definitely not trying to get it in subversively. :)
>I hit "Send" prematurely. I wanted t
On 7/9/2010 4:26 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Dino Viehland wrote:
Terry wrote:
This violates the important principle that allowed def and call arg
sequences should match to the extent sensible and possible. In this
sense, the SyntaxError is a bug. So I would fix t
On Jul 08, 2010, at 01:47 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>On 07.07.2010 20:40, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Getting back to this after the US holiday. Thanks for running these
>> numbers Scott. I've opened a bug in the Python tracker and attached
>> my latest patch:
>>
>> http://bugs.python.org/issue9193
>
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> This violates the important principle that allowed def and call arg
> sequences should match to the extent sensible and possible. In this sense,
> the SyntaxError is a bug. So I would fix this now for 3.2 and notify the
> other implementors.
+
37 matches
Mail list logo
