> Given how long strftime has been around I think %f is fine. We may
> even influence the future of the C library. :-)
Patch for datetime (py3k only at this point, no tests either) here:
http://bugs.python.org/issue1158
Skip
___
Python-3000 mailing
Guido> Which ones are two letters?
All the locale-specific stuff on Solaris 10. I guess technically the first
letter of the pair is a modifier of the actual code, which comes next. From
the man page:
Modified Conversion Specifications
Some conversion specifications can be modified b
"Paul Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 05/09/07, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rather than resurrecting the old RSA-copyright md5.c I can easily make
>> new
>> ones out of the libtomcrypt md5 and sha1 sources the same way i created
>> the
On 10 Sep 2007, at 01:58, Jim Jewett wrote:
> To spell this out a bit more:
> ...
> When adding four entries to an 8-slot table, a truly random hash would
> have at least one collision (0/8 + 1/8 + 2/8 + 3/8 =) 3/4 of the
> time. As expected, the proposed hash does have a collision for those
> fo
That's a different topic altogether. We're talking here about locking
modes for the buffer API (PEP 3118). This does not involve actual
locks -- the operations just fail if the requested lock cannot be
obtained.
On 9/12/07, Joel Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds much like the modes offe
On 9/12/07, Nicholas Bastin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/12/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can I just shortcut this discussion saying that we will *not* switch
> > to use GMP? It's just not going to happen. Period. End of discussion.
>
> I figured that was assumed once it
On 9/12/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I just shortcut this discussion saying that we will *not* switch
> to use GMP? It's just not going to happen. Period. End of discussion.
I figured that was assumed once it was pointed out that it didn't work
on Intel macs... I'm pretty
> Sounds much like the modes offered by an old operating system that had a
> very nice lock manager.
Awe, VMS isn't THAT old, is it? :-)
I have a wrapper around threading.Lock and threading.RLock that I've
been using that does deadlock detection and have wished for these lock
modes many times
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess I would be inclined to propose separate flags for indicating
> the operation that the caller will attempt (read or write) and the
> level of locking (lock the buffer's address or also prevent anyone
> else fr
On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, is '%f" okay to coopt? Is there some sort of future-proofing we can do
> so that if the libc folks decide later to use "%f" for something we're not
> (mildly) hosed? Maybe "%."? It appears that all strftime codes are one or
> two let
Can I just shortcut this discussion saying that we will *not* switch
to use GMP? It's just not going to happen. Period. End of discussion.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 12, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Larry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am opposed to using LGPL- or GPL-licensed code in Python.
>
> Me too. Also, I don't see the point. Python's current long integer
> performance is g
Larry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am opposed to using LGPL- or GPL-licensed code in Python.
Me too. Also, I don't see the point. Python's current long integer
performance is good enough for the large majority of Python users.
For the few specialized users, an extension module should
Guido> No, the datetime module is explicitly defined to use
Guido> microseconds. I don't expect there to be a practical use for
Guido> nanoseconds (even microseconds are doubtful, but useful since one
Guido> might want unique timestamps for more than 1000 events per
Guido> seco
On 9/11/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Any number of concurrent SIMPLE accesses can
> > coexist since the clients promise they will only read.
>
> As a general principle, using a word like SIMPLE in an
> API is a really bad idea imo, as it's far too vague.
15 matches
Mail list logo