>> Is there a 2-to-3 fixer for % format? I scanned the fixes directly
>> quickly but didn't see anything obvious.
Benjamin> I believe the only reason that % is even in 3.0 is that a 2to3
Benjamin> fixer couldn't be easily written for it.
I find that kind of hard to believe (that
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:20 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there a 2-to-3 fixer for % format? I scanned the fixes directly quickly
> but didn't see anything obvious.
I believe the only reason that % is even in 3.0 is that a 2to3 fixer
couldn't be easily written for it.
>
> Skip
>
>
> __
Is there a 2-to-3 fixer for % format? I scanned the fixes directly quickly
but didn't see anything obvious.
Skip
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.or
Should IOBase's writeable, readable, and seekable methods have
decorators like the closed method?
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://m
> > I can't run the ssl tests with -unetwork on my machine. Could somebody
> > please fix the test for me?
> >
> > Christian
>
> I see at least three "merges from the trunk" since I last touched it
> in December. If you revert these (to Lib/ssl.py, Modules/_ssl.c, and
> Lib/test/test_ssl.py), I'
Understood. Maybe I'll just use this technique to implement %b, and
leave everything else alone. I'll investigate.
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think there are too many risks with this approach, especially given
> that we're keeping % formatting mainly for backwards compatibility
> reasons. Ther
I think there are too many risks with this approach, especially given
that we're keeping % formatting mainly for backwards compatibility
reasons. There will inevitably be corner cases where the conversion
doesn't work exactly the same way as the old code or where the
conversion is wrong for whateve
I'm working on issue 2416, adding %b to % formatting
(http://bugs.python.org/issue2416). It's really quite a pain,
especially in 2.6 with int and long and str and unicode.
I'm contemplating just making % formatting compute a new format string
and call str.format (or obj.__format__, or somethin
> I can't run the ssl tests with -unetwork on my machine. Could somebody
> please fix the test for me?
>
> Christian
I see at least three "merges from the trunk" since I last touched it
in December. If you revert these (to Lib/ssl.py, Modules/_ssl.c, and
Lib/test/test_ssl.py), I'll bet things wi
> > I can't run the ssl tests with -unetwork on my machine. Could
> > somebody please fix the test for me?
>
> Oeer. The write() issues are easily fixed w/ b''. Investigating the lack of
> AsyncoreHTTPSServer, though, yielded quite significant differences between
> the trunk and py3k versions
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's not the Python spirit. The spirit is that *if* they support
> > similar enough functionality the APIs should be named the same, in the
> > same module, and have the same signature. E.g. the os module is built
> >
> That's not the Python spirit. The spirit is that *if* they support
> similar enough functionality the APIs should be named the same, in the
> same module, and have the same signature. E.g. the os module is built
> on this principle. Many APIs there are optional, but if they exist,
> they have a k
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Christian wrote:
> > > Make file objects as thread safe as the underlying libc FILE*
> implementation.
> > > close() will now raise an IOError if any operations on the file object
> > > are currently in progress in other
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still this seems like a bad thing to break backward compatibility with.
That's not a very strong argument for Py3k.
> Hopefully, this will be well documented at 3.0 release. Currently
> that "whats new" page
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's something reassuring about the fact that things
> > with no "obvious" textual representation stick out like
> > a sore digit when you try to print them. I wouldn't like
Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's something reassuring about the fact that things
> with no "obvious" textual representation stick out like
> a sore digit when you try to print them. I wouldn't like
> to lose that.
I agree with this and support the status quo (i.e. repr(int) ==
str(i
Regarding the recent test_ssl.py failures in py3k; I'm at a loss as to what the
py3k version should look like in comparison to trunk. At the moment, there are
pretty significant differences. I played around with just copying the trunk
version into py3k and running 2to3, but that yielded signi
> I can't run the ssl tests with -unetwork on my machine. Could
> somebody please fix the test for me?
Oeer. The write() issues are easily fixed w/ b''. Investigating the lack of
AsyncoreHTTPSServer, though, yielded quite significant differences between the
trunk and py3k versions of test_ssl
Christian wrote:
> > Make file objects as thread safe as the underlying libc FILE*
> > implementation.
> > close() will now raise an IOError if any operations on the file object
> > are currently in progress in other threads.
> >
> > Most code was written by Antoine Pitrou (pitrou). Additional
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> The Buildbot has detected a new failure of ppc Debian unstable 3.0.
> Full details are available at:
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/all/ppc%20Debian%20unstable%203.0/builds/771
>
> Buildbot URL: http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/all/
>
> Buildslave for this
I was quoting from the 3.0 a4 docs. It needs to be fixed then.
Thanks
--Anand
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/04/2008, Anand Balachandran Pillai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "range() now returns an iterator rather than a list...
> No: ran
On 09/04/2008, Anand Balachandran Pillai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "range() now returns an iterator rather than a list...
No: range() returns an iterable.
--
Arnaud
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/l
Anand Balachandran Pillai schrieb:
> Still this seems like a bad thing to break backward compatibility with.
> However I cannot really provide a use-case apart from what Benjamin
> has said -> Teaching. It is not a common use-case to equate ranges
> in code and that is bad coding anyway.
>
> Hopef
Anand Balachandran Pillai wrote:
> Still this seems like a bad thing to break backward compatibility with.
> However I cannot really provide a use-case apart from what Benjamin
> has said -> Teaching. It is not a common use-case to equate ranges
> in code and that is bad coding anyway.
>
> Hopeful
24 matches
Mail list logo
