The 3.0 alphas don't seem to build on FreeBSD. I've tried on both
6.2-stable and 7.0-RELEASE, using both make and gmake on each. They
all start complaining about bad commands in the makeilfe, then seem to
be working fine, then complain about a recursion in the dependency
graph, and stop.
The probl
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:33:21 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I still think it worthwhile to have *some* target in the Makefile
> > which depends on altinstall and does the bininstall and maninstall
> > steps. Something like "makeprimar
> The 3.0 alphas don't seem to build on FreeBSD.
That's not what the buildbot says:
http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/3.0/x86%20FreeBSD%203.0/builds/530/step-configure/0
http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/3.0/x86%20FreeBSD%203.0/builds/530/step-compile/0
> The problem appears to be related to c
Anthony Tolle wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Would you mind giving an "executive summary" of your argument that
>> doesn't require scanning 40 lines of code?
>>
>
> Let me put it this way: if unbound methods are gone for good, then I
> thi
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Anthony Tolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me put it this way: if unbound methods are gone for good, then I
> think it would nice to develop some guidance on checking the signature
> of callable objects, to enable decorators to play nice with each
> other--es
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it so crucial that "self" is the first argument? If I use a
> decorator that adds a new element to the beginning of the argument
> list, I wouldn't be surprised that I now have to write my methods as::
>
> @a
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Anthony Tolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why is it so crucial that "self" is the first argument? If I use a
> > decorator that adds a new element to the beginning of the argument
>
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:33:21 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > I still think it worthwhile to have *some* target in the Makefile
> > > which depends on a
