On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> As the subject line asks, is there anything preventing the following
> PEPs from being marked Final?
>
> SA 389 argparse - New Command Line Parsing Module Bethard
Sorry for taking forever to get back to this. So I looked over
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Steven Bethard
wrote:
> I'm kind of inclined to just remove those lines from the PEP since
> optparse is not being removed and since 2.7 and 3.2 are already out
> the door. If anyone thinks those deprecation warnings really need to
> be implemented, let me know in
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Steven Bethard wrote:
>
> I see though that vi puts the full name and version before the usage (which
> is currently impossible in argparse):
That was exactly my use case, which I'd say is very common for small
utilities. Just in 10 minutes I could find that abo
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:14 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> A pity that before argparse replaced optparse, there was no research
> made to gather the output from various console tools to see how
> argparse really saves people from reinventing their solutions.
argparse was adopted because it was a
I know there's a big ideas exchange in this list about how to use
Mercurial in the Python project.
I know that still there is not wide and firm consensus about the whole
workflow to follow.
But maybe some small decisions are already taken, some suggestions
about the best way to do this or that, e
Hello Facundo,
> But maybe some small decisions are already taken, some suggestions
> about the best way to do this or that, even if there are others that
> are not taken.
>
> Is this being documented somewhere?
Take a look at:
http://docs.python.org/devguide/committing.html
Regards
Antoine.
Antoine> Take a look at:
Antoine> http://docs.python.org/devguide/committing.html
What form should directed graphs be in for inclusion?
Thx,
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:14 PM, anatoly techtonik
> wrote:
>> A pity that before argparse replaced optparse, there was no research
>> made to gather the output from various console tools to see how
>> argparse really saves people from reinv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/26/2011 02:56 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Tres Seaver writes:
>
> > That was precisely my proposal:
>
> Sorry about that. I live in a disaster area, and was limited to
> GMail until two days ago, and lost a fair amount of context in the
"Refactor" doesn't sound like it belongs in the 3.1 branch...
Georg
On 25.03.2011 13:27, ezio.melotti wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ed02db9921ac
> changeset: 68924:ed02db9921ac
> branch: 3.1
> user:Ezio Melotti
> date:Fri Mar 25 14:19:30 2011 +0200
> summary:
>
On 3/26/2011 2:17 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
"Refactor" doesn't sound like it belongs in the 3.1 branch...
-for i in range(len(pattern)):
-c = pattern[i]
+for i, c in enumerate(pattern):
I would call thin 'Replace obsolete idiom in' rather than 'Refactor'.
So are you
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:00:29 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/26/2011 2:17 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> > "Refactor" doesn't sound like it belongs in the 3.1 branch...
>
> >> -for i in range(len(pattern)):
> >> -c = pattern[i]
> >> +for i, c in enumerate(pattern):
>
> I w
Am 26.03.2011 20:00, schrieb Terry Reedy:
> On 3/26/2011 2:17 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> "Refactor" doesn't sound like it belongs in the 3.1 branch...
>
>>> -for i in range(len(pattern)):
>>> -c = pattern[i]
>>> +for i, c in enumerate(pattern):
>
> I would call thin 'R
I changed the patch importer in Rietveld to recognize diffs without
a base changeset, which means that --git-style diffs are supported
as long as they apply to the default branch.
The tracker will provide review for a patch, iff, for all files in
the patch:
- a line starting with "diff " is found,
On 26.03.2011 20:19, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 26.03.2011 20:00, schrieb Terry Reedy:
>> On 3/26/2011 2:17 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>> "Refactor" doesn't sound like it belongs in the 3.1 branch...
>>
-for i in range(len(pattern)):
-c = pattern[i]
+for
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:55 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> What if we could accompany every PEP draft with series of use
> cases/user stories? I don't know how many people actually reviewed
> this particular PEP 389, and that's bad, because without this info it
> is hard to say if there were enou
On 27/03/2011 0.03, Georg Brandl wrote:
On 26.03.2011 20:19, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Am 26.03.2011 20:00, schrieb Terry Reedy:
On 3/26/2011 2:17 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
"Refactor" doesn't sound like it belongs in the 3.1 branch...
-for i in range(len(pattern)):
-c = patte
17 matches
Mail list logo
