On 11/23/14, Mark Shannon wrote:
>
[...]
>
> You are grouping next() and it.__next__() together, but they are different.
> I think we agree that the __next__() method is part of the iterator
> protocol and should raise StopIteration.
> There is no fundamental reason why next(), the builtin functio
off-topic , not about asyncio but related to the PEP and other things
been discussed in this thread
On 11/28/14, Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2014-11-28 3:49 GMT+01:00 Nick Coghlan :
>
[...]
>
> So yes, it may help to have a new specialized exception, even if "it
> works" with RuntimeError.
>
This is
correction ...
On 11/28/14, Olemis Lang wrote:
>
> try:
>...
> except RuntimeError:
>return
>
... should be
{{{#!py
# inside generator function body
try:
...
except StopIteration:
return
}}}
[...]
--
Regards,
Olemis - @olemislc
Apache(tm) Bloodhoun
On 11/28/14, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...]
>
> @Olemis: You never showed examples of how your code would be used, so it's
> hard to understand what you're trying to do and how PEP 479 affects you.
>
The intention is not to restart the debate . PEP is approved , it's
done ... but ...
as a side-e
On 5/19/15, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/19/2015 11:02 AM, Kushal Das wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
Hi !
I'm not very familiar with python-dev development workflows .
Nonetheless I just wanted to mention something that proved to be
useful for me in the past .
>> With the help of CentOS project I am happy to an
Wow ! Awesome ! What specific ISA version(s) and/or device(s) have you tried ?
On 12/15/15, Vitaly Murashev wrote:
> A lot of talks and patches around how to cross-compile python for andriod
> ...
>
> Dear python-dev@,
> I just want to say thanks to all of you for the high quality cross-platform
On 4/3/13, Charles-François Natali wrote:
>> Are you planning to cover the code quality of the interpreter itself
>> too? I've been recently reading through the cert.org secure coding
>> practice recommendations and was wondering if there has is any ongoing
>> effort to perform static analysis on
Hi !
:)
I'll be replying some individual messages in this thread in spite of
putting my replies in the right context . Sorry if I repeat something
, or this makes the thread hard to read . Indeed , IMHO this is a
subject suitable to discuss in TiP ML .
On 5/19/13, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> On Sa
-- Forwarded message --
From: Olemis Lang
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:33:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Purpose of Doctests [Was: Best practices for Enum]
To: Antoine Pitrou
On 5/20/13, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:41:59 -0700
> Raymond Hettinger
On 5/19/13, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On 20/05/13 09:27, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger <
>> raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Bad: doctests.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm hoping that core d
Hi !
... sorry , I could not avoid to reply this message ...
On 5/20/13, Michael Foord wrote:
>
> On 20 May 2013, at 18:26, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
I'm hoping that core developers don't get caught-up in the "doctests are
bad
meme".
Instead, we should be clear about their p
On 5/20/13, Olemis Lang wrote:
[...]
> On 5/20/13, Michael Foord wrote:
[...]
>
>> * Tool support for editing within doctests is *generally* worse
>
> this is true , let's do it !
>
[...]
>> * Typing >>> and ... all the time is really annoying
>
>
On 5/20/13, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> * Doctests practically beg you to write your code first and then copy
>>> and
>>> paste terminal sessions - they're the enemy of TDD
>>
>> Of course , not , all the opposite . If the approach is understood
>> correctly then the first thing test author will do is
On 6/7/13, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Is there a doctest mailing list? I couldn't find it.
>
JFTR, Testing-in-Python (TiP) ML should be the right target for
general purpose questions about testing, considering docs even for
unittest and doctest
http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python
[...]
On 6/8/13, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 06/08/2013 03:09 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>> 08.06.13 11:47, Ethan Furman написав(ла):
[...]
>
> Fair point. But I suppose that if the end-user is running a doc test, it is
> not too much to require that the other
> tests be installed as well. Plus, we defi
On 10/6/13, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2013/10/6 Victor Stinner :
>> Hi,
>>
:)
[...]
>>
>> unittest doesn't look to release memory (the TestCase class) after the
>> execution of a test.
>
> Is it important to optimize unittests for memory usage?
>
AFAICT , test results will stored the outcomes
forwarding to the list , sorry ...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Olemis Lang
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:09:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Reduce memory footprint of Python
To: Benjamin Peterson
On 10/6/13, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2013/10/6 Victor Stinner :
>>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Venkatraman S wrote:
> Hi,
Hi ...
>
> If there are some optimizations that can be done in the bytecodes, then
> 'where' would be
> the suggested place to incorporate the same;
The way I modify function's bytecode now (... but I am open to further
suggestions ...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Paul Moore gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> 3. Setuptools, unfortunately, has divided the Python distribution
>> community quite badly.
>
> Wait a little bit, and it's gonna be even worse, now that buildout and pip
> seem
> to become popular. For
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Paul Moore gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> 3. Setuptools, unfortunately, has divided the Python distribution
>>> community quite badly.
>>
>> Wait a little bit, and it's gonna be even worse
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:31 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 08:32 AM 3/25/2009 -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes it also happens that, once one such build/packaging systems
>> is adopted, it is difficult to switch to using another one, since apps
>> (... and plugins
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:11 AM 3/25/2009 -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>
>> ... but Trac plugins *do require* egg files ... (AFAIK after reading
>> Trac docs and implementation of plugin upload from /admin/plugins, egg
>> cache for plugins
2009/3/25 Tennessee Leeuwenburg :
> I would suggest there may be three use cases for Python installation tools.
> Bonus -- I'm not a web developer! :)
> Case One: Developer wishing to install additional functionality into the
> system Python interpreter forever
> Case Two: Developer wishing to inst
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>
>> Yes you're right, Trac requires .egg files for local plugins installs
>> (... in /plugins folder ;) so that not all environments but only one
>> be able to
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 2009/3/26 Toshio Kuratomi :
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I think Distutils (and therefore Setuptools) should provide some APIs
to play with special files (like resources) and
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>> One thing that /would/ be helpful though is the ability to list all the
>>> resources under a specific package path. This is (I thi
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 2009, at 6:06 PM, Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote:
>>
>>> For case one, where I want to install additional functionality into my
>>> system Python interpreter "fo
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 2009, at 6:06 PM, Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote:
>>&g
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Paul Moore gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> 3. Setuptools, unfortunately, has divided the Python distribution
>>> community quite badly.
>>
>> Wait a little bit, and it's gonna be even worse
2009/3/26 Toshio Kuratomi :
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>> I think Distutils (and therefore Setuptools) should provide some APIs
>>> to play with special files (like resources) and to mark them as being
>>> special,
>>> no matter where they en
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing that /would/ be helpful though is the ability to list all the
>>>>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>
>> {{{
>>>>>
>>>>> [x for x in dir(pkg_resources) if all(y in x for y in
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
>
> Tres> Exactly: I never use easy_isntall to put packages into the system
> Tres> python. in fact, I only use it inside a virtalenv-generated
> Tres> isolated environment.
>
> While standing in line for lunch today, someone (don't know his name)
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thi
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> 2009/3/26 Barry Warsaw :
>> Let me clarify my position: I just want the functionality (preferably in the
>> stdlib); I don't really care how it's spelled (except please not
>> pkg_resource.whatever() :).
>
> Agreed.
+1
--
Regards,
Olemis.
B
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:49 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 2009-03-27 04:19, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> - keep distutils, but start deprecating certain higher-level
>> functionality in it (e.g. bdist_rpm)
>> - don't try to provide higher-level functionality in the stdlib, but
>> instead let third
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> 2009/3/27 Guido van Rossum :
>> - keep distutils, but start deprecating certain higher-level
>> functionality in it (e.g. bdist_rpm)
>> - don't try to provide higher-level functionality in the stdlib, but
>> instead let third party tools built o
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> On 2009-03-27 17:07, P.J. Eby wrote:
>>> At 11:37 PM 3/26/2009 -0500, Eric Smith wrote:
P.J. Eby wrote:
>
> As someone else suggested, moving some of the functionality to PEP 302
> interfaces would a
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Olemis Lang wrote:
>>>
>>> I also think the feature should go. If you want functionality that's so
>>> difficult to provide when you install as a zip file, the answer is not to
>>> make things m
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> One of the motivations for deprecating this (and for using this
>> specific example) was that Matthias Klose, the Python packager for
>> Debian, said he never uses bdist_rpm.
>
> Given t
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>> Olemis Lang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I also think the feature should go. If you want functionality that's so
>>>> difficult to provide when yo
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
>> The unittest module is around 1500 lines of code now, and the tests are
>> 3000 lines.
>>
>> It would be much easier to maintain as a package rather than a module.
>> Shall I work on a sugge
2009/4/3 Tarek Ziadé :
> Guys,
>
> The tasks discussed so far are:
>
> - version definition (http://wiki.python.org/moin/DistutilsVersionFight)
> - egg.info standardification (PEP 376)
> - metadata enhancement (rewrite PEP 345)
> - static metadata definition work (*)
Looks fine ... and very usefu
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>
>> BTW ... I see nothing about removing dist_* commands from distutils ...
>>
>> Q: Am I wrong or it seems they will remain in stdlib ?
>
> This is roughly
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>
>> - PyPI mirroring (PEP 381)
>
> I don't see why PyPI isn't just ported to GAE with an S3 data storage bit
> and be done with it... Offline mirrors for people behind firewalls already
> have solutions out there...
>
-1
Hi !
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Christian Heimes wrote:
>> Steve Holden wrote:
>>> Devs:
>>>
>>> If you are interested in offering better Windows support then please
>>> read the email below
>>
>> [...]
>>
MSDN subscriptions include copies of most Microsoft product
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:43 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> My question is the following :
>>
>> - What are the implications for Py users ?
>
> So I stick with what you said is your question: What are the
> implications for Py users ?
>
> To this, the answer is mostly: none at all. There may be va
I realized that PyPI accepts MyOpenId and tried to login to the site.
In the process I get this message :
{{{
OpenID provider did not provide your email address
}}}
I mean, is it mandatory to provide the e-mail address in order to bind
a user to an OpenId ?
I'm curious : I'd like to know if there
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 09:23:22AM -0600, m h wrote:
>
>> Does anyone else have interest in such functionality? Is it outside
>> the realm of this PEP?
>
> It is outside the scope of this particular PEP, but it is certainly an
> interesti
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Frank Wierzbicki wrote:
>>
>> Talk has started up again on the stdlib-sig list about finding a core
>> stdlib + tests that can be shared by all implementations, potentially
>> living apart from CPython.
>
[...]
>
> if the
> stdlib was actuall
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Chris Withers simplistix.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> I'm on on stdlib-sig and I'm afraid I don't have the bandwidth to start
>> on it, but I'd just like to throw in (yet again) that it would be great
>> if the stdlib was actually a set of separate
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Chris Withers simplistix.co.uk> writes:
>>>
[...]
>
> For instance, I have started something like that has been dome by the
> FLiOOPS project [1]_
S
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Jens W. Klein wrote:
> Am Montag, den 05.10.2009, 13:07 +0200 schrieb Christian Heimes:
>> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> >
>> > Oh, it was just yet another Zope developer behaving like an ass. Why
>> > am I not surprised?
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Fredri
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
[...]
>>
>> User ratings and comments are the
>> future for "app store" style sites such as PyPI, and spam
>> unfortunately comes with the terrain. There are plenty of things we
>> can
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> When it comes to comments and recommendations for selecting software
>> packages, developers *are* the end users :)
>
> Yes, most certainly. But developers as consumers are very different
>
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> When it comes to comments and recommendations for selecting software
>>> packages, developers *are* the e
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> At 02:45 PM 10/6/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
To put this into a way that makes sense to me: I'm volunteering to keep
distribute 0.6 and setuptools 0.6 in sync, no more
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> At present, configuration of Python's logging package can be done in one of
> two
> ways:
>
> 1. Create a ConfigParser-readable configuration file and use
> logging.config.fileConfig() to read and implement the configuration therein.
> 2. Use t
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Olemis Lang gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This kind of problems is similar to the one mentioned in another
>> thread about modifying config options after executing commands. In
>> that case I mentioned that the same dic
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Paul Rudin wrote:
> Vinay Sajip writes:
>
>
>> What's the general feeling here about this proposal? All comments and
>> suggestions will be gratefully received.
>>
>
> How about the global logging configuration being available as an object
> supporting the usual d
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On approximately 10/7/2009 10:45 PM, came the following characters from the
> keyboard of Vinay Sajip:
>>
>> Glenn Linderman g.nevcal.com> writes:
>>
>>> But DictConfigurator the name seems misleading... like you are
>>> configuring how dic
Hello !
Recently I found a code snippet [1]_ illustrating integration between
Python and COM technology in Win32 systems. I tried to reproduce it
and I can't import module `ctypes.com`.
Q:
- Is it (`ctypes.com`) distributed with stdlib ?
If that's true then I'm affraid that those py files wer
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> Olemis Lang schrieb:
>> Hello !
>>
>> Recently I found a code snippet [1]_ illustrating integration between
>> Python and COM technology in Win32 systems. I tried to reproduce it
>> and I can't impo
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:13 AM, wrote:
> On 12:48 pm, c...@msu.edu wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> The most *exciting* part of pony-build, apart from the always-riveting
>> spectacle of "titus rediscovering problems that buildbot solved 5 years
>> ago",
>> is the loose coupling of recording server to
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:42:30AM -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:13 AM, wrote:
>> > On 12:48 pm, c...@msu.edu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>> Olemis Lang gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> This kind of problems is similar to the one mentioned in another
>>> thread about modifying config options a
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:44:32 pm Ludvig Ericson wrote:
>> Why are there comments on PyPI? Moreso, why are there comments which
>> I cannot control as a package author on my very own packages? That's
>> just absurd.
>
> No, what's absurd is t
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>>> Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
>>> is broken. I've taken the stance of not publishing things
Intention = precision => for a better PyPI
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>>
Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and ot
Intention = personal opinion => for a better PyPI
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>> I'd not trust a package without a bug tracker, mailing list or link to
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 09/12/2009 16:27, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
> I just ran the tests for zope.testing on Python 2.7, and the results are not
> good. It seems that there are multiple minor difference in the output
> formatting of the testresults between 2.7 a
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>> On 09/12/2009 16:27, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>
>> I just ran the tests for zope.testing on Python 2.7, and the results are not
>> good. It seems
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 17:43, Fred Drake wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Benjamin Peterson
>> wrote:
>
>> Evolving the tests to avoid depending on these sorts of implementation
>> details is reasonable, IMO, and cuold even be
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>
>> > Evolving the tests to avoid depending on these sorts of implementation
>> > details is reasonable, IMO, and cuold even be considered a bugfix by
>> > the Zope community.
>>
>> Evo
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Steven Bethard
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Ian Bicking wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Steven Bethard
>> wrote:
>>> So there wasn't really any more feedback on the last post of the
>>> argparse PEP other than a typo fix and another +1.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 14/12/2009 19:04, Ian Bicking wrote:
>>
>> [snip...]
>> Another thing I just noticed is that argparse using -v for version
>> where optparse does not (it only adds --version); most of my scripts
>> that use -v to mean --verbose, causing pr
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Steven Bethard
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> I thought that one of the following approaches would be considered :
>>
>> - let optparse remain in stdlib (as is or not ...)
>> - re-implement optpars
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>> I thought that one of the following approaches would be considered :
>>>
>>> 1 - let optparse remain in stdlib (as
/me starting a new thread because this goes beyond argparse itself
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Steven Bethard gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Because people are continuing this discussion, I'll say again that
>> argparse already supports this:
>
> Well I think the point is
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2009/12/30 Martin (gzlist) :
>> Hi Benjamin,
>
> Hi!
>
>> In rev 74094 of Python, you split the unittest module up,
+1
>> could you
>> point me at any bug entries or discussion over this revision so I can
>> catch up?
>
> This was mostl
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Martin (gzlist) wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> On 30/12/2009, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>
>> When I made that change, I didn't know that the __unittest "hack" was
>> being used elsewhere outside of unittest, so I felt fine replacing it
>> with anothe
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Martin (gzlist)
> wrote:
>> Thanks for the quick response.
>>
>> On 30/12/2009, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>
>> but maybe a
>> discussion could start about a new, les
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Victor Stinner
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Builtin open() function is unable to open an UTF-16/32 file starting with a
>> BOM if the encoding is not specified (raise an unicode error). For an UTF-8
>> file starting with a BOM, read()/readline() returns also the BOM wher
Probably one part of this is OT , but I think it could complement the
discussion ;o)
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Olemis Lang wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Victor Stinner
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>&g
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> In October 2009 I created PEP 391 to propose a new method of configuring
> logging using dictionaries:
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0391/
>
> In November 2009 I posted to this list that the PEP was ready for review.
>
> I have had n
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Several
> authors of other Python testing frameworks spoke up *against* them, but
> several *users* of test frameworks spoke up in favour of them. ;-)
>
+1 for having something like that included in unittest
> I'm pretty sure
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Several
>> authors of other Python testing frameworks spoke up *against* them, but
>> several *users* of test frameworks spoke up
Sorry. I had not finished the previous message
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Michael Foord
>> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Several
>>&g
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:42:50 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
>>
>> The next 'big' change to unittest will (may?) be the introduction of
>> class and module level setUp and tearDown. This was discussed on
>> Python-ideas and Guido supported th
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 17:57, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> Le Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:42:50 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> The next 'big' change to unittest will (may?) be the introduction of
>>> class and module level setUp and tearDown. This wa
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:29, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Michael Foord
>> wrote:
>> > I'm pretty sure I can introduce setUpClass and setUpModule without
>> > breaki
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Michael Foord writes:
>
>> It seems to me that the same effect (always reporting test name) can
>> be achieved in _TextTestResult.getDescription(). I propose to revert
>> the change to TestCase.shortDescription() (which has both a horrible
>> na
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Michael Foord writes:
>
>> The next 'big' change to unittest will (may?) be the introduction of
>> class and module level setUp and tearDown. This was discussed on
>> Python-ideas and Guido supported them. They can be useful but are also
>> very
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Holger Krekel wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
>> Michael Foord writes:
>>
>>> The next 'big' change to unittest will (may?) be the introduction of
>>> class and module level setUp and tearDown. This was discussed on
>>> Python-ideas
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:15 PM, wrote:
> On 10:42 pm, fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
>>
>> On 09/02/2010 21:57, Ben Finney wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael Foord writes:
The next 'big' change to unittest will (may?) be the introduction of
class and module level setUp and tearDown. This wa
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Michael Foord writes:
>
>> I've used unittest for long running functional and integration tests
>> (in both desktop and web applications). The infrastructure it provides
>> is great for this. Don't get hung up on the fact that it is called
>> un
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 10/02/2010 01:07, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Michael Foord writes:
>>> On 09/02/2010 21:50, Ben Finney wrote:
I understood the point of ‘TestCase.shortDescription’, and indeed
the point of that particular name, was to be clear th
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:56 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:45:41 -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Holger Krekel
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ben Finney
>> > wrote:
>> >> Mich
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 11/02/2010 12:30, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what response I expect from this email, and neither option
>>> will be implemented without further discussion - possibly at the PyCon
>>> sprints - bu
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2010 12:30, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what response I
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
