Maciej Fijalkowski fij...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to discuss on the language summit a potential inclusion
of cffi[1] into stdlib. This is a project Armin Rigo has been working
for a while, with some input from other developers.
I've tried cffi (admittedly only in a toy script) and find
Maybe someone from PyPy should bring this up as an official topic at the
language summit to figure out the blockers (again). Or it can join regex on
the list of module discussed for addition at the language summit but never
quite pushed to commitment. =)
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
a late-in-the-release-cycle third dot release? It caused, ZODB's tests
to fail, for instance.
While the docstring said, Don't
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
Maybe someone from PyPy should bring this up as an official topic at the
language summit to figure out the blockers (again). Or it can join regex on
the list of module discussed for addition at the language summit but never
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 01:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
This really seems a case of ZODB depending on internals where it
really, really should have known better. Calling this a de-facto
public interface seems way too far a stretch of the intention. And
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Dec 17, 2013, at 01:18 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
a late-in-the-release-cycle third dot release? It caused, ZODB's tests
to
This really seems a case of ZODB depending on internals where it
really, really should have known better. Calling this a de-facto
public interface seems way too far a stretch of the intention. And
please don't fix it by version-testing and using a different argument
name...
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013
[Barry]
...
I don't think the API *has* to change in a backward incompatible way either.
The methods could be given **kws with a bit of hackery to figure out whether
the old API was being used (keys: int, default, maxwidth) or the new API was
being used (keys: _int and _maxwidth). Yeah it's
On 18 Dec 2013 06:21, Maciej Fijalkowski fij...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
Maybe someone from PyPy should bring this up as an official topic at the
language summit to figure out the blockers (again). Or it can join
regex on
the
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:18:25 -0500
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
a late-in-the-release-cycle third dot
2013/12/17 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:18:25 -0500
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
I've successfully embedded Python for a single thread
I tried to extend the implementation for multiple threads (a worker
thread scenario) and I'm encountering either deadlocks or seg faults
depending upon how I got about it.
There seems to be some inconsistency between what is covered in the
I've successfully embedded Python for a single thread
I tried to extend the implementation for multiple threads (a worker
thread scenario) and I'm encountering either deadlocks or seg faults
depending upon how I got about it.
There seems to be some inconsistency between what is covered in the
Isn't changing it in 2.7.6 which is already released and then reverting in
2.7.7 worse? Either way 2.7.6 will have this change and be in the wild and
broken for people who depend on it
On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2013/12/17 Antoine Pitrou
Mostly yes, but at least you could tell people to upgrade straight to
2.7.7 and skip 2.7.6.
2013/12/17 Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io:
Isn't changing it in 2.7.6 which is already released and then reverting in
2.7.7 worse? Either way 2.7.6 will have this change and be in the wild and
broken
15 matches
Mail list logo
