On 9/12/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you wonder how this all happened: Neal added sgml_input.html after
c1, but didn't edit msi.py to make it included on Windows. I found out
after running the test suite on the installed version, edited msi.py,
and rebuilt the installer.
Neal Norwitz schrieb:
Is there an easy to fix this sort of problem so it doesn't happen in
the future (other than revoke my checkin privileges :-) ?
Sure: Don't make changes after a release candidate. That files are
missing can only be detected by actually producing the installer and
testing
On 4 Oct 2006, at 06:34, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Alastair Houghton schrieb:
On 3 Oct 2006, at 17:47, James Y Knight wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
As Michael Hudson observed, this is difficult to implement, though:
You can't distinguish between -0.0 and +0.0
On 4 Oct 2006, at 02:38, Josiah Carlson wrote:
Alastair Houghton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is, of course, the option of examining their representations in
memory (I described the general technique in another posting on this
thread). From what I understand of IEEE 764 FP doubles, -0.0
Hi Nick,
Yep, PEP 315. Sorry about that.
Now, about your suggestion
do:
setup code
while condition
loop body
else:
loop completion code
This is pythonic, but not logical. The 'do' will execute at least once, so
the else clause is not needed, nor
Ok, I see your point. Really, I've read more about Python than worked with
it, so I'm out of my league here.
Can I combine your suggestion with mine and come up with the following:
do:
setup code
loop body
while condition
else:
loop completion
Thanks for your reply Nick, and your support Michael. I'll leave the PEP
talk to you guys :)
Cheers,
Hans
-Original Message-
From: Michael Foord [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fuzzyman
Sent: martes, 03 de octubre de 2006 12:00
To: Nick Coghlan
Cc: Hans Polak;
I'm against infinite loops -something religious :), which explains the call
for the do loop.
The issue about the parser is over my head, but the thought had occurred to
me. Now, it would not affect while loops inside do loops, wouldn't it?
Cheers,
Hans.
-Original Message-
From: Nick
Please note that until == while not.
do:
code
until count 10
do:
code
while count = 10
Cheers,
Hans.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Foord [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fuzzyman
Sent: martes, 03 de octubre de 2006 16:29
To: Nick Coghlan
Alastair Houghton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AFAIK few systems have floating point traps enabled by default (in
fact, isn't that what IEEE 754 specifies?), because they often aren't
very useful.
The first two statements are true; the last isn't. They are extremely
useful, not least
James Y Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a really poor argument. Python should be moving *towards*
proper '754 fp support, not away from it. On the platforms that are
most important, the C implementations distinguish positive and
negative 0. That the current python
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:42:04AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If C90 doesn't distinguish -0.0 and +0.0, how can Python?
With liberal applications of piss vinegar ;-)
Can you give a simple example where the difference between the two is
apparent
to the Python
Hm, doesn´t seem to be so for my regular python.
Python 2.3.3 Stackless 3.0 040407 (#51, Apr 7 2004, 19:28:46) [MSC v.1200 32 bi
t (Intel)] on win32
Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information.
x = -0.0
y = 0.0
x,y
(0.0, 0.0)
maybe it is 2.3.3, or maybe it is stackless
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:42:04AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
If C90 doesn't distinguish -0.0 and +0.0, how can Python?
Can you give a simple example where the difference between the two
is apparent to the Python programmer?
Perhaps surprsingly, many (well, comparatively many, compared
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:32:43PM -0700, Neal Norwitz wrote:
Let me know if you see anything screwed up after an hour or so. The
new versions should be up by then.
Thanks! That seems to have cleared things up -- the section names are
now node2.html, node3.html, ..., which is what I'd expect
You are all wasting your time on this. It won't go in.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On 10/4/06, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are all wasting your time on this. It won't go in.
+1 from me. Should you mark PEP 315 as rejected?
Jeremy
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev
I'll mark it as withdrawn.
Raymond
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Jeremy Hylton
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:44 AM
To: Guido van Rossum
Cc: Hans Polak; python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 315 - do while
On
On 10/3/06, Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/2/06, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I asked for input from people on which would take less time. Almost all the answers I got was that the the C code was delicate but that
it was workable.Several people said they wished
Alastair Houghton schrieb:
AFAIK few systems have floating point traps enabled by default (in fact,
isn't that what IEEE 754 specifies?), because they often aren't very
useful. And in the specific case of the Python interpreter, why would
you ever want them turned on?
That reasoning is
Kristján V. Jónsson schrieb:
Hm, doesn´t seem to be so for my regular python.
maybe it is 2.3.3, or maybe it is stackless from back then.
It's because you are using Windows. The way -0.0 gets rendered
depends on the platform. As Tim points out, try
math.atan2(0.0, -0.0) vs math.atan2(0.0,
On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
If it breaks a few systems, that already is some systems too many.
Python should never crash; and we have no control over the floating
point exception handling in any portable manner.
You're quite right, though there is already plenty of
I've made some changes to poplib.py, submitted them to Sourceforge, and emailed Piers regarding taking over maintenance of the module. I have his support to do so, along with Guido's. However, I would like to ask one of the more senior developers to review the change and commit it.
Many thanks
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it..
(And perhaps several others.) To that end I've submitted patch #1569040
to
24 matches
Mail list logo
