[Python-Dev] Failed issue tracker submission

2011-12-18 Thread Python tracker

An unexpected error occurred during the processing
of your message. The tracker administrator is being
notified.
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: [email protected]
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: from mail.python.org (mail.python.org [82.94.164.166])
by psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF0611DE20
for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:23:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from albatross.python.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.python.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3T5wK759MkzQ00
for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:23:39 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=python.org; s=200901;
t=1324236219; bh=/yIht6I8EmPEiXZ9KLwjVNemYVkalK/1gPj7HIPxFXM=;
h=Date:Message-Id:Content-Type:MIME-Version:
 Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:To:Subject;
b=oFlrztFHjmQi6JK3VCXIic9qr39+OWQ4rGmVoFTk59ABwcLwBJpJGa4BQq74DRZT9
 BoWSENTtwjmDIiLNg3LgIXv9RioJHWtR6EWlj1R7fvPUfTgnjXd7fJNgbVSPG5BbgU
 VzVC5bQYIO9aKpzYWBTTxH700UdCfLAC27/GwIKY=
Received: from localhost (HELO mail.python.org) (127.0.0.1)
  by albatross.python.org with SMTP; 18 Dec 2011 20:23:39 +0100
Received: from dinsdale.python.org (svn.python.org [IPv6:2001:888:2000:d::a4])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mail.python.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS
for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:23:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost
([127.0.0.1] helo=dinsdale.python.org ident=hg)
by dinsdale.python.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from )
id 1RcMKh-0006D3-Ii
for [email protected]; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:23:39 +0100
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:23:39 +0100
Message-Id: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [issue7502]

TmV3IGNoYW5nZXNldCBlMzdjNzE2OTg0MDkgYnkgQW50b2luZSBQaXRyb3UgaW4gYnJhbmNoICcz
LjInOgpGb2xsb3d1cCB0byAjNzUwMjogYWRkIF9faGFzaF9fIG1ldGhvZCBhbmQgdGVzdHMuCmh0
dHA6Ly9oZy5weXRob24ub3JnL2NweXRob24vcmV2L2UzN2M3MTY5ODQwOQoKCk5ldyBjaGFuZ2Vz
ZXQgNGZmYTk5OTJhN2Q4IGJ5IEFudG9pbmUgUGl0cm91IGluIGJyYW5jaCAnZGVmYXVsdCc6CkZv
bGxvd3VwIHRvICM3NTAyOiBhZGQgX19oYXNoX18gbWV0aG9kIGFuZCB0ZXN0cy4KaHR0cDovL2hn
LnB5dGhvbi5vcmcvY3B5dGhvbi9yZXYvNGZmYTk5OTJhN2Q4Cg==
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Move PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND outside PyUnicode_Kind enum

2011-12-18 Thread Martin v. Löwis
>   Move PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND outside PyUnicode_Kind enum

What's the rationale for that change? It's a valid kind value, after
all, and the C convention is that an enumeration lists all valid values
(else there wouldn't be a need for an enumeration in the first place).

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Move PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND outside PyUnicode_Kind enum

2011-12-18 Thread Victor Stinner

On 18/12/2011 20:34, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:

   Move PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND outside PyUnicode_Kind enum


What's the rationale for that change? It's a valid kind value, after
all, and the C convention is that an enumeration lists all valid values
(else there wouldn't be a need for an enumeration in the first place).


PyUnicode_KIND() only returns PyUnicode_1BYTE_KIND, PyUnicode_2BYTE_KIND 
or PyUnicode_4BYTE_KIND. Outside unicodeobject.c, you are not supposed 
to see PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND.


For switch/case, it avoids the need of adding a dummy 
PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND case (or a default case).


Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Move PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND outside PyUnicode_Kind enum

2011-12-18 Thread Martin v. Löwis
Am 18.12.2011 20:45, schrieb Victor Stinner:
> On 18/12/2011 20:34, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>>Move PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND outside PyUnicode_Kind enum
>>
>> What's the rationale for that change? It's a valid kind value, after
>> all, and the C convention is that an enumeration lists all valid values
>> (else there wouldn't be a need for an enumeration in the first place).
> 
> PyUnicode_KIND() only returns PyUnicode_1BYTE_KIND, PyUnicode_2BYTE_KIND
> or PyUnicode_4BYTE_KIND. Outside unicodeobject.c, you are not supposed
> to see PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND.

Why do you say that? It can very well happen, assuming you call
PyUnicode_KIND on a string that is not ready. That would be a
bug in the module, but people do make bugs when programming.

> For switch/case, it avoids the need of adding a dummy
> PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND case (or a default case).

... and thus hides a potential source of errors, as people may
forget to call ready, and then fall through the case, letting
god-knows-what happen.

If the rationale is to simplify silencing compiler errors, I
vote for reverting the enumeration back to a macro list.

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Move PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND outside PyUnicode_Kind enum

2011-12-18 Thread Victor Stinner

On 18/12/2011 21:04, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:

PyUnicode_KIND() only returns PyUnicode_1BYTE_KIND, PyUnicode_2BYTE_KIND
or PyUnicode_4BYTE_KIND. Outside unicodeobject.c, you are not supposed
to see PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND.


Why do you say that? It can very well happen, assuming you call
PyUnicode_KIND on a string that is not ready. That would be a
bug in the module, but people do make bugs when programming.


I added assert(PyUnicode_IS_READY(op)) to the macro, so the bug will be 
quickly catched in debug mode. I forgot that it is just an assertion and 
few people use Python compiled in debug mode.



If the rationale is to simplify silencing compiler errors, I
vote for reverting the enumeration back to a macro list.


I'm not sure that gcc will not complain if only 3 values are handled. I 
agree to revert the commit if that helps developers to write bugs.


Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Move PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND outside PyUnicode_Kind enum

2011-12-18 Thread Martin v. Löwis
Am 18.12.2011 21:16, schrieb Victor Stinner:
> On 18/12/2011 21:04, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> PyUnicode_KIND() only returns PyUnicode_1BYTE_KIND, PyUnicode_2BYTE_KIND
>>> or PyUnicode_4BYTE_KIND. Outside unicodeobject.c, you are not supposed
>>> to see PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND.
>>
>> Why do you say that? It can very well happen, assuming you call
>> PyUnicode_KIND on a string that is not ready. That would be a
>> bug in the module, but people do make bugs when programming.
> 
> I added assert(PyUnicode_IS_READY(op)) to the macro, so the bug will be
> quickly catched in debug mode. I forgot that it is just an assertion and
> few people use Python compiled in debug mode.
> 
>> If the rationale is to simplify silencing compiler errors, I
>> vote for reverting the enumeration back to a macro list.
> 
> I'm not sure that gcc will not complain if only 3 values are handled. I
> agree to revert the commit if that helps developers to write bugs.

It helps to detect bugs. User should be aware that there is an
additional case, and put something like

  case PyUnicode_WCHAR_KIND:
 /* string is guaranteed to be ready here */
 assert(0);

into their code.

Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] A new dict for Xmas?

2011-12-18 Thread Antoine Pitrou
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:32:44 +
Mark Shannon  wrote:
> 
> > per-instance attributes, it just forces them all to keep resizing up,
> > even though individual instances would be small with the current dict.
> There is a cut-off point, at the moment it's quite unsophisticated about 
> how it does this, but it could easily be improved.
> Suggestions are welcome.

Can you open an issue on the bug tracker?
There you can either give your repo URL, or upload a patch.
Both should allow to start reviewing the code :)

Regards

Antoine.


___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistent script/console behaviour

2011-12-18 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Fernando Perez writes:

 > Apology for the advertising,

If there's any apologizing to be done, it's on Anatoly's part.  Your
post was short, to the point, information-packed, and should put a big
fat open-centered ideographic full stop period to this thread.

___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com