Jack Jansen wrote:
The comment in pyconfig.h suggests that defining _POSIX_C_SOURCE may
enable certain features, but the actual system headers appear to work
the other way around: it seems that defining this will disable features
that are not strict Posix.
Does anyone know what the real
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I guess that leaves Alex's question of whether or not supplying a string of some
description as the initial value can be legitimately translated to:
if isinstance(initial, basestring):
return initial + type(initial)().join(seq)
If you're trying to get people in the
Bob Ippolito wrote:
I'm not sure why it's useful to explode the stack with all that
recursion? Mine didn't do that. The control flow is nearly identical,
but it looks more fragile (and you would get some really evil stack
trace if iter_factory(foo) happened to raise something other than
Python 2.4 won the Jolt productivity award last night. That's the
runner-up award; in our category, languages and development tools, the
Jolt (the category winner) went to Eclipse 3.0; the other runners-up
were IntelliJ and RealBasic (no comment :-).
Like usually, open source projects got several
On Thursday 2005-03-17 15:42, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Python 2.4 won the Jolt productivity award last night. That's the
runner-up award; in our category, languages and development tools, the
Jolt (the category winner) went to Eclipse 3.0; the other runners-up
were IntelliJ and RealBasic (no
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:01:27 -0800, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josiah Carlson wrote:
[snip]
I think properties are the most used case where this kind of thing would
be nice. Though the only thing that I've ever had a gripe
Jp Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:01:27 -0800, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josiah Carlson wrote:
[snip]
I think properties are the most used case where this kind of thing would
be
Are the thread semantics for file objecst documented anywhere? I
don't see anything in the library manual, which is where I expected to
find it. It looks like read and write are atomic by virtue of fread
and fwrite being atomic.
I'm less sure what guarantees, if any, the other methods attempt
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
Are the thread semantics for file objecst documented anywhere? I
don't see anything in the library manual, which is where I expected to
find it. It looks like read and write are atomic by virtue of fread
and fwrite being atomic.
Uncle Timmy will
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:25:44 -0500, Aahz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
Are the thread semantics for file objecst documented anywhere? I
don't see anything in the library manual, which is where I expected to
find it. It looks like read and write are
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:04:16 +0100, Martin v. Löwis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy Hylton wrote:
Are the thread semantics for file objecst documented anywhere? I
don't see anything in the library manual, which is where I expected to
find it. It looks like read and write are atomic by virtue
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:13:05 -0500, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Jeremy Hylton]
Are the thread semantics for file objecst documented anywhere?
No. At base level, they're inherited from the C stdio implementation.
Since the C standard doesn't even mention threads, that's all
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005, Tim Peters wrote:
I think Aahz was on target here:
NEVER, NEVER access the same file object from multiple threads, unless
you're using a lock.
And here he went overboard:
And even using a lock is stupid.
ZODB's FileStorage is bristling with locks
Jeremy Hylton wrote:
Are the thread semantics for file objecst documented anywhere?
Literally, the answer to your question is no.
I'm surprised that it does not, for example, guarantee that reads and
writes are atomic, since CPython relies on fread and fwrite which are
atomic.
Where is the
[Jeremy Hylton]
...
Universal newline reads and get_line() both lock the stream if the
platform supports it. So I expect that they are atomic on those
platforms.
Well, certainly not get_line(). That locks and unlocks the stream
_inside_ an enclosing for-loop. Looks quite possible for
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:57:52 +0100, Martin v. Löwis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember, you were asking what behaviour is *documented*, not what
behaviour is guaranteed by the implementation (in a specific version
of the implementation).
Martin,
I think you're trying to find more finesse in my
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I'm
happy to announce the release of Python 2.4.1 (release candidate 2).
Python 2.4.1 is a bug-fix release. See the release notes at the website
(also available as Misc/NEWS in the source distribution) for details of
the bugs
17 matches
Mail list logo
