Le jeudi 26 mai 2011 à 08:13 -0400, Eric Smith a écrit :
> If you're ever going to add code at the end of these functions, it's
> unlikely you'll remember that you need to add these increments back in.
You don't have to remember. Test the result of the function, it will not
give the expected outpu
On 5/26/2011 8:32 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le jeudi 26 mai 2011 à 08:13 -0400, Eric Smith a écrit :
>> If you're ever going to add code at the end of these functions, it's
>> unlikely you'll remember that you need to add these increments back in.
>
> You don't have to remember. Test the result
2011/5/26 Victor Stinner :
> Le jeudi 26 mai 2011 à 08:13 -0400, Eric Smith a écrit :
>> If you're ever going to add code at the end of these functions, it's
>> unlikely you'll remember that you need to add these increments back in.
>
> You don't have to remember. Test the result of the function, i
On 5/26/2011 10:34 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 26 May, 2011, at 16:10, Eric Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>> and make silent the Clang Static Analyzer :-)
>>
>> I care less about that than maintainability and future-proofing.
>
> Have to looked at the patch? The patch and resulting code look sane to
On 26 May, 2011, at 16:10, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>
>> and make silent the Clang Static Analyzer :-)
>
> I care less about that than maintainability and future-proofing.
Have to looked at the patch? The patch and resulting code look sane to me, and
if anything at most of the updated segments loo
On 5/26/2011 10:34 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 26 May, 2011, at 16:10, Eric Smith wrote:
and make silent the Clang Static Analyzer :-)
I care less about that than maintainability and future-proofing.
Have to looked at the patch? The patch and resulting code look sane to me, and
if a
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/26/2011 10:34 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>
>> On 26 May, 2011, at 16:10, Eric Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
and make silent the Clang Static Analyzer :-)
>>>
>>> I care less about that than maintainability and future-proofing.
>
>
>> Have to
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
..
>> Have to looked at the patch? The patch and resulting code look sane to me,
>> and
>> if anything at most of the updated segments look cleaner after the patch.
>
> I have looked at it. I think the code was better before the patch. If I
> we
On 5/26/2011 2:08 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Sorry to butt in here, but I agree with Eric that it was better
before. There is a common idiom, *pointer++ =, and
whenever you see that you know that you are appending something to an
output buffer. Perhaps the most important idea here is that this
2011/5/26 Terry Reedy :
> On 5/26/2011 2:08 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Sorry to butt in here, but I agree with Eric that it was better
>> before. There is a common idiom, *pointer++ =, and
>> whenever you see that you know that you are appending something to an
>> output buffer. Perhaps the m
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 15:58, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:41:46 -0400
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> I think it would be a nice feature, and I can see the conflict. OT1H you
>> want
>> to keep os.chown() a thin wrapper, but OTOH you'd rather not have to add a
>> new, arguably more
11 matches
Mail list logo
