On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Adam Olsen wrote:
So what does Qt do when given a file name already using those PUA?
Looks like they get passed through untouched when decoded, but will
get translated into invalid names upon encoding.
Well, I'd say that looks like a bug. It should probably decode th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I won't be able to cut another release between the 15th and 5th, so
at least that one should be 2 weeks. If we don't need the
additional rc, then we can release early, which would put us just
bef
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Barry Warsaw]
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>> [Barry Warsaw]
>>> So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
>>> My suggestion:
>>> 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
>>> 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
>>> 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
>>> 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
>>> Give
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:51 AM, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>>
>>> - Having os.getcwdb isn't much use when you can't even run python in
>>> the first place when the current directory has "bad" bytes in it.
>>
>> That's not true: it
James Y Knight wrote:
> or at least fully recognized and documented as a half-baked
> solution.
I would prefer that, leaving a full resolution to 3.1 (or perhaps 3.2).
If we wait long enough, the issue will disappear (a strategy that Sun
is apparently taking for Java :-)
Regards,
Martin
_
James Y Knight wrote:
FWIW: Qt works fine with undecodeable filenames, and it too uses unicode
strings everywhere in its API. I looked into what it does, and found
that it uses your (Martin)'s original idea for solving this: it stores
undecodeable bytes as characters from 0x10fe00 to 0x10feff
On Oct 7, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
- Having os.getcwdb isn't much use when you can't even run python in
the first place when the current directory has "bad" bytes in it.
That's not true: it *is* of much use. Python will live in /usr/bin,
which has a nicely-decodable path.
Curr
2008/10/6 Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
>> 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
>> 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
>> 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
>>
>> Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do we
>> need two more betas?
>
> Yes to both questions.
I agree with you h
> Here's some I found from a few minutes of futzing around with r66821 of
> py3k on Linux.
>
> - Having os.getcwdb isn't much use when you can't even run python in
> the first place when the current directory has "bad" bytes in it.
That's not true: it *is* of much use. Python will live in /usr/b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Barry Warsaw]
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
Given w
[Barry Warsaw]
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My
suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do
we need two more betas?
Yes to bot
12 matches
Mail list logo
