On 16 Oct 2013 11:42, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:24:11 +1000, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 16 Oct 2013 01:54, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
With that change, I'd be +1. With just suppress, I'm -0.
Please, please,
On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
this thread still epitomises everything that sucks about soul destroying,
energy draining bikeshed painting that makes me wonder why I ever bother
trying to make anything better.
FWIW, here's a little history:
* Last
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 00:07:16 -0700,
Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com a écrit :
As Nick said, this thread was just awful. I found it painful to read
each day. Shoot from the hip comments were given greater weight than
months of development. Neither Nick nor I were given an ounce
CONGRATULATION! This thread reached 100 mails, it's now time to
summarize it into a PEP. Is there a candidate to write it?
If no PEP is written, the thread will never die and people will
continue to feed it.
Victor
2013/10/11 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
Hello,
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013
2013/10/16 Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
FWIW, here's a little history:
Thank you! It helped me to understand the story.
* In February, I presented ignore() in the keynote for the U.S. Pycon.
Again, the feedback was positive.
I missed this edition of Pycon US. How did you
I might agree with idea of contextlib.ignore() (I'm still opposed to
the idea), but I don't understand the purpose of adding a new syntax
doing exactly the same than try/except:
with trap(OSError) as cm:
os.unlink('missing.txt')
if cm.exc:
do_something()
Nobody
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:42:34 +0200,
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com a écrit :
I might agree with idea of contextlib.ignore() (I'm still opposed to
the idea), but I don't understand the purpose of adding a new syntax
doing exactly the same than try/except:
with trap(OSError) as
2013/10/16 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
By the way, what are the performances of contextlib.ignore()?
Exceptions can be slow in some cases. Adding something even slower
would not be a good idea.
A try block which succeeds is fast.
Ah yes, I never reminder this fact. I try to not care
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:01:37 +0200,
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com a écrit :
2013/10/16 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
By the way, what are the performances of contextlib.ignore()?
Exceptions can be slow in some cases. Adding something even slower
would not be a good idea.
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:09:16 +0200,
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net a écrit :
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:01:37 +0200,
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com a écrit :
2013/10/16 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
By the way, what are the performances of contextlib.ignore()?
Exceptions
On Oct 16, 2013 5:35 AM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/10/16 Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
FWIW, here's a little history:
Thank you! It helped me to understand the story.
* In February, I presented ignore() in the keynote for the U.S. Pycon.
On 10/16/2013 12:07 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
this thread still epitomises everything that sucks about soul destroying,
energy draining bikeshed painting that makes
me wonder why I ever bother trying to make anything better.
I think each
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com a écrit :
I might agree with idea of contextlib.ignore() (I'm still opposed to
the idea), but I don't understand the purpose of adding a new syntax
doing exactly the same than try/except:
with trap(OSError) as cm:
I would rewrite your examples using try/finally:
try:
try:
os.unlink('missing.txt')
finally:
some
other
code
except OSError as exc:
do_something()
It's differently than yours, because it catchs OSError on some;
On Oct 16, 2013, at 08:31 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
When a module's maintainer makes a decision on a relatively insignificant
addition to the module, I'd expect little resistance or even comment (the
original commit was months ago). That's why I'm surprised by the reaction
to this change. It just
Victor Stinner writes:
the idea), but I don't understand the purpose of adding a new syntax
doing exactly the same than try/except:
with trap(OSError) as cm:
os.unlink('missing.txt')
if cm.exc:
do_something()
Nobody noticed that this can be written:
On 10/16/2013 07:06 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Actually, it was to kick around one line of code, the most import one:
def ignored(...):
s/import/important/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Le Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:31:44 -0600,
Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com a écrit :
You make several good points, Victor. However, in this case the
change is a new function and a small, innocuous one at that. That is
not enough justification alone, as Antoine pointed out, but the
module's
Eric Snow writes:
That's why I'm surprised by the reaction to this change. It just
seems like the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion to
the detriment of other interesting problems.
The feature itself a perfect bikeshedding pitfall. Everybody here
understands the Zen, and
(all this using Python 3.4.0a3+)
In the stdlib, I see that (as an example):
import os
os.path.abspath
function abspath at 0xb7123734
os.path
module 'posixpath' from '/.../python/trunk/Lib/posixpath.py'
However, for other (newer) modules:
import urllib
urllib.requests.urlopen
Traceback
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:26:11PM -0300, Facundo Batista
facundobati...@gmail.com wrote:
(all this using Python 3.4.0a3+)
In the stdlib, I see that (as an example):
import os
os.path.abspath
function abspath at 0xb7123734
os.path
module 'posixpath' from
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Facundo Batista
facundobati...@gmail.comwrote:
(all this using Python 3.4.0a3+)
In the stdlib, I see that (as an example):
import os
os.path.abspath
function abspath at 0xb7123734
os.path
module 'posixpath' from '/.../python/trunk/Lib/posixpath.py'
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Facundo Batista
facundobati...@gmail.com wrote:
(all this using Python 3.4.0a3+)
In the stdlib, I see that (as an example):
import os
os.path.abspath
function abspath at 0xb7123734
os.path
module 'posixpath' from '/.../python/trunk/Lib/posixpath.py'
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Oct 16, 2013, at 08:31 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
When a module's maintainer makes a decision on a relatively insignificant
addition to the module, I'd expect little resistance or even comment (the
original commit was months ago).
Hello,
Is there a reason why the stdlib socket module _fileobject.flush() method
is using ._rbufsize instead of ._wbufsize at line 297 (Python 2.7.3), where
it determines the buffer_size value to be used for _sock.sendall()? Does
anybody know the history behind this?
Based on what I read in the
On 16 Oct 2013 21:34, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/10/16 Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
FWIW, here's a little history:
Thank you! It helped me to understand the story.
* In February, I presented ignore() in the keynote for the U.S. Pycon.
Again,
On 10/16/2013 5:01 PM, Peter Portante wrote:
Hello,
Is there a reason why the stdlib socket module _fileobject.flush()
method is using ._rbufsize instead of ._wbufsize at line 297 (Python
2.7.3), where it determines the buffer_size value to be used for
_sock.sendall()? Does anybody know the
27 matches
Mail list logo
