Since 2.7 is probably going to exist for a while, I am running Clang 2.7's
static analyzer (``clang --static``) over trunk. It's mostly just finding
stuff like unneeded variable initialization or variables that are never used
(compilation is picking up unused returned values, almost all from
PyObje
rote:
Benjamin Peterson python.org> writes:
>
> 2010/5/3 Brett Cannon python.org>:
> > When I check in these changes I will do it file by file, but my
question is
> > how to handle M...
Indeed. At most a single NEWS entry sounds sufficient.
Regards
Antoine.
_
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 08:27, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
> On May 4, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > I think we should reindent all 3 branches. Most of the work can probably
> be scripted (str.replace("\t", " " * 4)), and then a visual pass is
> necessary to fix vertical alignments and t
).
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 15:37, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Since 2.7 is probably going to exist for a while, I am running Clang 2.7's
> static analyzer (``clang --static``) over trunk. It's mostly just finding
> stuff like unneeded variable initialization or variables
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 14:01, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Le mardi 04 mai 2010 00:37:22, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> > Since 2.7 is probably going to exist for a while, I am running Clang
> 2.7's
> > static analyzer (``clang --static``) over trunk. It's mostly just fin
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 08:09, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 5 May, 2010, at 22:56, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I am done running the analysis over trunk. I will not svnmerge these
> changes into py3k as the amount of time and effort that would take equates
> to running the static a
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 09:09, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 07:52:49PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > 3.x). I'll take a stab at a more accurate rationale:
>
> Thanks! I've applied the scalpel and reduced it to:
>
> * A policy decision was made to silence warnings only of interes
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:10, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 20:40:00 +0400, Oleg Broytman wrote:
> > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 04:09:06PM +0200, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> > > Does anyone know of a way to teach vim that C sources in a python
> checkout should have 4-space indents with
Feel free to look at Misc/Vim/python.vim and see if this works better
than what is already there.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 20:47, Trent Nelson wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of a way to teach vim that C sources in a python checkout
>> should have 4-space indents without changing the defaults for oth
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:18, Steven Bethard wrote:
> Sorry I haven't had time to get around to the argparse issues. I
> should have time this weekend. I need a release manager call on one of
> the issues though. Two things I assume are fine to fix at this stage:
>
> * In the documentation, the '
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 14:35, Andrew Svetlov wrote:
> For me it's the real bug in standard python import machinery.
> I don't see any backward incompatibilities.
> There are very hard to write any import-depended code based on
> decision: was module imported in absolute or relative way.
>
> If it
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 17:12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 08:28:46 am Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
>> I've not seen this mentioned, but on such a long thread I might have
>> missed it: we already have a "__future__" module, as in
>>
>> from __future__ import with_statement
>>
>> and to m
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:29, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 29.05.2010 21:06, schrieb P.J. Eby:
>>
>> At 08:45 PM 5/29/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In it he says that PEP 382 is being deferred until it can address PEP
302 loaders. I can't find any follow-up to this. I don't s
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 15:56, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 09:29 PM 5/29/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>
>> Am 29.05.2010 21:06, schrieb P.J. Eby:
>>>
>>> At 08:45 PM 5/29/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
> In it he says that PEP 382 is being deferred until it can address PEP
> 302
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 00:40, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 03:44 PM 5/29/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:29, "Martin v. Löwis"
>> wrote:
>> > Am 29.05.2010 21:06, schrieb P.J. Eby:
>> >>
>> >> At 08:45 PM
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 00:53, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> For finders, their search algorithm is changed in a couple of ways.
>> One is that modules are given priority over packages (is that
>> intentional, Martin, or just an oversight?).
>
> That's an oversight. Notice, however, that it's really
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 22:03, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 06:18 PM 5/30/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 00:40, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> >
>> > Which would completely break one of the major use cases of the PEP,
>> > which is
>>
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 08:12, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 09, 2010, at 04:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>>Many of them are not keen on having to maintain Python2 for much
>>longer, but some of them may have assets codified in Python2
>>or interests based Python2 that they'll want to keep for
>>mo
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:40, Eric Smith wrote:
>> On 6/9/2010 4:07 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Closed issues are not lost. They can still be searched and the result
>> downloaded.
>>
>>> A keyword would do. Please don't add a status or something like that,
>>> though.
>>
>> I believe Type:
The logging module taught me something today about the difference of a
function defined in C and a function defined in Python::
import importlib
class Base:
def imp(self, name):
return self.import_(name)
class CVersion(Base):
import_ = __import__
class PyVersion(Base):
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 18:30, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
>> 2010/6/11 Brett Cannon :
>>> This "magical" ignoring of self seems to extend to any PyCFunction. Is
>>> this dichotomy intentional or
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:43, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 08:48 PM, l...@rmi.net wrote:
>
>>Well, it looks like I've stumbled onto the "other shoe" on this
>>issue--that the email package's problems are also apparently
>>behind the fact that CGI binary file uploads don't work in 3.1
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 13:53, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 6/18/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Dörwald wrote:
>
>> http://coverage.livinglogic.de/
>
> I am a bit puzzled as to the meaning of the gray/red/green bars since the
> correlation between coverage % and bars is not very high.
Gray is lines that are
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 05:42, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:43:02 +0530
> Senthil Kumaran wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> > FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial:
>> > http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension
>>
>> Sh
[cc'ing Bob on his gmail address; didn't have any other address handy
so I don't know if this will actually get to him]
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:54, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> It looks like simplejson 2.1.0 and 2.1.1 have been released:
>
> http://bob.pythonmac.org/archives/2010/03/10/simplejson-
I finally realized why clang has not been silencing its warnings about
unused return values: I have -Wno-unused-value set in CFLAGS which
comes before OPT (which defines -Wall) as set in PY_CFLAGS in
Makefile.pre.in.
I could obviously set OPT in my environment, but that would override
the default
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 08:50, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> This is a follow up to PEP 3147. That PEP, already implemented in Python 3.2,
> allows for Python source files from different Python versions to live together
> in the same directory. It does this by putting a magic tag in the .pyc file
> name
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:38, Bill Janssen wrote:
[SNIP]
> The language moratorium kind of makes this all theoretical, but building
> a String ABC still would be a good start, and presumably isn't forbidden
> by the moratorium.
Because a new ABC would go into the stdlib (I assume in collections
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:27, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 08:50, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> This is a follow up to PEP 3147. That PEP, already implemented in Python
>>> 3.2,
>>>
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:07, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 24/06/2010 19:11, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:38, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>>
>>> The language moratorium kind of makes this all theoretical, but building
>
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:53, Éric Araujo wrote:
> Le 24/06/2010 19:48, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>> P.S.: I wish we could drop use of the 'module.so' variant at the same
>> time, for consistency sake and to cut out a stat call, but I know that
>> is asking too much.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:53, Scott Dial
wrote:
> On 6/24/2010 8:23 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Scott Dial wrote:
>>> If the package has .so files that aren't compatible with other version
>>> of python, then what is the motivation for placing that in a shared
>>> lo
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:53, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I finally realized why clang has not been silencing its warnings about
> unused return values: I have -Wno-unused-value set in CFLAGS which
> comes before OPT (which defines -Wall) as set in PY_CFLAGS in
> Makefile.pre.in.
>
>
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 16:37, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:53, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> I finally realized why clang has not been silencing its warnings about
>>> unused return values: I have -Wno-unused-value set in CFLAGS
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 13:37, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>> AC_PROG_CC is the macro that sets CFLAGS to -g -O2 on gcc-based
>>> systems
>>> (http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:03, Bill Janssen wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>> > Seems to work fine. So this I don't understand. Any ideas, anyone?
>>
>> Didn't we discuss this before?
>
> Possibly, but I don't recall doing so.
>
>> The buildbot slave has no controlling
>> terminal anymore, h
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:53, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> The whole "unexpected" skipping is somewhat of a mess. In an ideal
>> situation modules that are optionally built should be allowed to skip,
>
> While this may be the wide-spread interpretation, it is definitely *not*
> the original intent
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:52, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:53 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> When Tim Peters added it, he wanted it to tell him whether he did the
>> Windows build correctly, INCLUDING ALL OPTIONAL PACKAGES that can
>> possibly work on Windows. If you try to ge
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 15:01, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> When Tim Peters added it, he wanted it to tell him whether he did the
>>> Windows build correctly, INCLUDING ALL OPTIONAL PACKAGES that can
>>> possibly work on Windows. If you try to generalize this beyond Windows,
>>> then the only skip
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 15:20, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> So it isn't that it's "unexpected", it's that a dependency is missing.
>> So it seems the terminology needs to get tweaked.
>
> More that th
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 07:31, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:51:06 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 14:52, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> > Primary concern is that will happen with central Subversion
>> > repository. There are a plenty of private tools and
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 15:07, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 01, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
>>On 1 July 2010 20:58, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> Here is a *really* quick-and-dirty approach for non-committers to
>>> create a patch they can submit. This is not
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 08:49, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> Antoine, I value you contribution to `hgsvn` project, and this thread
> is not a personal accusation of anybody in making proper transition -
> please understand that I would like to see the opinion of people who
> preferred not to be involv
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:25, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and tested
> with an assumption that Subversion repository will be online and
> up-to-date after Mercurial migration. But recent threads showed that
> currently there is no tested m
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 17:17, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:25, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>> I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and tested
>>> with an assumption that
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 15:40, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 03.07.2010 16:34, schrieb Christian Heimes:
>> Am 03.07.2010 09:00, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
I'm trying to test out a patch to add a timeout in subprocess.py on
Windows, so I need to build Python with Visual Studio. The docs
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:04, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> Sorry for touching a sore point of if I sound like a boss to someone.
> I tried to be as constructive as possible, but politeness was not the
> point, so I can only hope you understand.
>
> I do not think PSF does its job well and here is wh
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:59, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> This idea has been discussed extensively in this and other forums and
> I believe it is time to make a decision.
>
> The proposal is to add pure python implementation of datetime module
> to stdlib. The current C implementation will tra
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 20:54, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/6/2010 3:59 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
>
> I am more interested in Brett's overall vision than this particular module.
> I understand that to be one of a stdlib that is separate from CPython and is
> indeed the standard Python library.
>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 08:29, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 7/6/2010 3:59 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
>>
>> I am more interested in Brett's overall vision than this particular module.
>> I understand that to be one of a stdlib that is
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 -- even
>> >if it's reST without much markup -- but valid, so th
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:30, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 07.07.2010 18:09, schrieb Michael Foord:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> over on the fellowship o' the packaging mailing list, one of our GSoC
>>> students
>>> (merwok) asked about how much formatting info should go into Python
>>> stdlib
>>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 13:16, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 08:29, Alexander Belopolsky
>> wrote:
> ..
>>> For datetime.py this approach presents several problems:
>>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 13:53, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>>>>> 2. There are test classes defined at the test_datetime module level
>>>>> that subclass from datetime classes. The self.module is not
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:31, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>> Using a class decorator to duplicate each _test_ into two test_* methods
>> sounds like a good approach.
>
> Note that parameterised methods have a similar problem to
> parameterised mo
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:17, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 3:32 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> That's the idea. We already have contributors from the various VMs who
>> has commit privileges, but they all work in their own repos for
>> convenience. My hope is th
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 07:59, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 2010/7/7 Nick Coghlan :
>>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Michael Foord
>>> wrote:
Using a class decorator to duplicate each _test_ into two test_* methods
sounds like a
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
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 09:28, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:23:13 +
> Reid Kleckner wrote:
>>
>> I'm also expecting to be doing more work merging unladen-swallow into
>> the py3k-jit branch, so I was wondering if I could get commit
>> privileges for that.
>
> It sounds good
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 13:30, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:59:14 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz
> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Martin v. L=F6wis wrote:
>> > I can understand that this is frustrating, but please understand that
>> > this is not specific to your patches, or t
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 16:42, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 23:48, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2010 6:04 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>>
>>> Given how high traffic python-checkins is I don't consider that a
>>> reasonable place to send follow-up and nor do I consider it the
>>> responsibili
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:48, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
> wrote:
> > In my experiments, 0 is not equivalent to None:
> >
> import sys, time
> sys.modules['time'] = 0
> __import__('time')
> > 0
> sys.modules['time'] = None
>
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:34, Alexander Belopolsky <
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
> ..
> > No! That's not recommended and a complete hack. The "dance" or
> > importlib.import_module is preferred.
>
> Nevertheless, "a complet
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 01:36, Eric Smith wrote:
> On 7/14/2010 4:21 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
>> Am 13.07.2010 22:29, schrieb Brett Cannon:
>>
>> Given how high traffic python-checkins is I don't consider
>>> that a
>>>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 05:15, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> >> I have stopped fixing bugs related to this in import.c because of the
> >> annoying issues it causes and I expect the correct approach to gain
> >> traction at some point (plus get impo
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 13:01, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:33:55 -0700
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> So I started writing benchmark code in anticipation of needing to prove a
>> minimal performance difference to justify bootstrapping importlib. Right
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:19, Terry Reedy wrote:
> The 'trunk' branch appears to have been frozen 12 days ago when 2.7 was
> released. I presume py3k is now the main development branch. Correct?
>
Yes.
> There are doc(s) on the site the directed people to the 'trunk' branch. If
> not updated (a
y the known failures are happening --
before I start worrying about bootstrapping and performance and that will
all be no sooner than Python 3.3.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 04:55, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> In any case,
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 16:58, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:42:00 -0400
> Jesse Noller wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Tim Golden
> wrote:
> > [...snip...]
> > > A messy discussion turned on the question of garbage collection of
> module
> > > objects, and the ord
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 13:00, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:51:57 +0100
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> >
> > That's an option. I just remember Tim bringing up something about that
> > approach that didn't quite work as a complete replacement for __
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 14:48, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> PEP 360 - “Externally Maintained Packages” seems to have outdated
> contents.
> First of all, I don't think Optik and wsgiref are externally
> maintained anymore (both seem unmaintained by their original authors).
>
Added a
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 19:19, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 01:51 PM 7/22/2010 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>> At EuroPython, I sat down with Brett and we propose an approach
>> how namespace packages get along with import hooks. I reshuffled
>> the order in which things get done a little bit, and add
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 02:13, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Great points Jesse! Since I really don't have the time or expertise to
> > make a judgment on this PEP, I hereby appoint you chair of the
> > approval process for this PE
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 09:54, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 11:57 AM 7/23/2010 +0100, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 19:19, P.J. Eby <<mailto:p...@telecommunity.com>
>> p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:
>>
>> What does "is not a pa
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 23:45, Daniel Stutzbach
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 3:47 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Please send me your SSH key.
>
> Done.
>
> I have also subscribed to python-committers and python-checkins. I
> will add my interests to Misc/maintainers.rst. Are there any othe
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 17:04, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/8/23 Steven D'Aprano :
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:50:19 am Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>>> > * Is there anything that hasattr(obj, key) can or should do that
>>> > can't already be done with getattr(obj, key, None)?
>>> > If not, do
If you could, Sylvain, please post the patch to bugs.python.org. That
way it doesn't get lost amongst the emails sent to python-dev.
-Brett
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 05:37, Sylvain Mora wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I use python for more than a year now and i bought a MacBook in July. I
> installed Python 2.7
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:32, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:07:13 +0200 (CEST)
> brett.cannon wrote:
>> Author: brett.cannon
>> Date: Thu Aug 26 23:07:13 2010
>> New Revision: 84329
>>
>> Log:
>> OSError is the exception raised when one tries to create a directory that
>> alread
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 08:45, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> One thing that would help would be for Guido to let us know early on when
>> he'd
>> prefer to delegate the decision.
>
> Hey! I'm still here! :-)
>
> More to the point, you can assume
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 14:55, Daniel Stutzbach
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>
>> IMO this runs contrary to the decision we made when DeprecationWarnings
>> were
>> made silent by default: it spews messages not only at developers, but also
>> at
>> users, who don
I'm +1 for Antoine to go ahead and do what he wants; the module is
busted as-is and I trust him to make a good judgement call. But I
wanted to specifically reply to Skip about removal.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:43, wrote:
>
> Baptiste> Reading this from GMANE ;-)
>
> I use GMANE too on occas
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:50, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:21:11 -0400
>> Steve Holden wrote:
>>>
>>> The question of when to declare 3.x the "official" release is
>>> interesting. I am inclined to say "when there's at l
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:35, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> ...snip...
>>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
>>&
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:36, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> Fundamentally; I would gladly hold up 3.2 (just my opinion) for the
>> needed fixes to the standard lib [...]
>
> I think I should share a little anecdote at this point:
>
> Earlier
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:45, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> At 11:11 AM 9/15/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
>>> Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
>>> release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved,
Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
it.
Thinking out loud here to keep this discussion focused, I say we give
a deadline for PEPs to be submitted by October 15th. We then choose
two PEP dictators
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 14:41, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 22:46, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
>> we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
>> it.
>
> I th
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 06:28, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Why won't you feel confident? Are there any specific issues (apart from
>> the lack of a WSGI PEP)?
>> If they are technical problems, they should be reported on the bug
>> tracker.
>>
Go ahead and file the bug, but chances are that some other installed
Python is executing the code and picking up the .pyc files which have
bytecode new to Python 2.7.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:41, Tom Browder wrote:
> I am trying to rebujild the 2.7 maintenance branch and get this error
> on Ubu
Please file the bug and it can be discussed further there.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:05, Tom Browder wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 13:48, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Go ahead and file the bug, but chances are that some other installed
>> Python is executing the code and picking up
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 18:24, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 9/22/2010 6:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> > Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple
>> > factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mento
:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> the first thing on the agenda is a complete rewrite of the developer
>> docs and moving them into the Doc/ directory
>
> I'd like to know why you think moving the developer docs into the
> CPython tree makes sens
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:05, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 11:49 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
>
>>A separate repository would also be fine, IMO. If someone can find or
>>write the code to publish that repository to the appropriate location
>>automatically, we could presumably do this
I think every week where more bugs are closed than opened should be
celebrated! =) Thanks to everyone who closed something this week (and
to those that filed good bug reports).
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 09:14, Python tracker wrote:
>
> ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2010-09-17 - 2010-09-24)
> Python tracker at
tal delta is a complete count of bugs, while the open and closed
deltas can apply to pre-existing bugs, e.g., a bug that was re-opened.
-Brett
>
> Georg
>
> Am 24.09.2010 20:00, schrieb Brett Cannon:
>> I think every week where more bugs are closed than opened should be
>> cele
rrectly how the counters work, they at least need to
> be renamed -- they do *not* count open/closed issues, they count
> openings/closings.
Guess the only way to settle this is look at the code, but I don't
care enough to bother. =)
-Brett
>
> Georg
>
> Am 24.09.2010 22
All fixed.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:22, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> The PEP still hasn't showed up on Python.org, though, so I'm wondering
>> if maybe I broke something else somewhere.
>
> See http://www.python.org/status/postcommitlog.txt
>
> Error processing PEP None (./pep-.txt), excludi
M 9/27/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> All fixed.
>
> Nope. I mean, sure, I checked in fixed PEP sources several hours ago, but
> python.org still doesn't show PEP , or the updated version of PEP 333.
>
>
___
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 18:13, Steve Holden wrote:
> I see that Atlassian have just taken over BitBucket, the Mercurial
> hosting company. IIRC Atlassian offered to host our issue tracking on
> JIRA, but in the end we decided to eat our own dog food and went with
> roundup.
That's right. Enough o
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 05:42, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 29 septembre 2010 à 07:27 -0500, Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
>> >
>> > I would like to piggy-back on this discussion to suggest further
>> > warnings (either by default, or switchable).
>> >
>> > One feature I've often considered
1801 - 1900 of 3314 matches
Mail list logo
