[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Serhiy Storchaka]

Change by Serhiy Storchaka :


--
resolution:  -> out of date
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Alexander Belopolsky]

Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Scott Dial rep...@bugs.python.org wrote:
..
 By rejecting unittests on the merits of its coding style, you are creating a 
 double-standard for people like
 me (outside of the core committers), which eventually wears out my interest 
 in helping you get this
 improvement into your project.

I don't think there is a double-standard.  What you see is more of an
evolving standard in which we seek higher quality for the new code
than that of the code already in.  The readability of the test code is
as important if not more important than the readability of the main
code.  It may be more important because in some cases you can trust
obscure code if it is clear that tests cover all corner cases and are
easy to understand.

I don't think there are overly strict standards for how unit tests
should be written, but when they are written in a style that is
unfamiliar to the reviewer, it makes it harder to review.  Note that a
reviewer needs to worry about tests passing on multiple platforms,
their behavior in failure scenarios, as well as other issues that
contributors typically overlook.  Stylistic issues often point out to
real problems, but are easier to spot.  For example, try/finally is
more error prone than with statement.   In fact, in your test
append stream will not get closed if writing fails.  You may think
the resource leak on failure is not a big deal, but for some runners
that execute tests repeatedly this may lead to spurious failures.

The acceptance rate for a patch is proportional to the severity of an
issue that it fixes and obviousness of the fix (including tests.)
This patch fails on both counts.  Looking at the history of the issue,
I see that the patch was applied once but reverted because it caused a
crash.  See msg78161.  This shows that the tests were not sufficiently
thorough.  Next, a patch was suggested with tests that did not fail
without a patch.  See msg111516.  This probably shows that additional
tests are needed for 3.2.

These are the reasons I unassigned this issue.  In my opinion it would
take a committer too much effort to bring the patch to commit ready
shape for the marginal benefit of fixing a platform dependent corner
case.  If the tests were better written so that it would be more
obvious what is fixed and that nothing gets broken, my calculation
would probably be different.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Antoine Pitrou]

Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:

I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding here about the scope of the issue. 
fileobject.c is not really used in py3k (except for a couple very specific uses 
such as the tokenizer or the import machinery).
The standard I/O stack uses object in the _io module (that is, in 
Modules/_io/*.c).
That's also why you won't see the tests failing, even without the patch...

--
stage: test needed - patch review
versions:  -Python 3.1, Python 3.2

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Scott Dial]

Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com added the comment:

I'm well aware of the limited use of Py_UniversalNewlineFgets() in py3k, but it 
remains the case that it is a public API that fails to work correctly under the 
conditions specified by the reporter, and Alexander confirmed the original 
patch fixed the issue. AFAICT, there no longer are any test cases (beyond the 
indirect testing of the dependent code) for Py_UniversalNewlineFgets().

One of the issues with applying the patch to tip was due to commenting out some 
code in it:

 /* if ( c == EOF  skipnextlf )
 newlinetypes |= NEWLINE_CR; */

For issue8914, which really should've just deleted those two lines, but there 
was not such an extensive review of that change.

The unittests have there own merit. The file object API is supposed to behave 
in the manner that the tests exercise them. There are currently no tests that 
would inform us if any change broke this documented behavior. If you want to 
split the patch in two to treat them as independent items, then fine.

Otherwise, close the issue as WONTFIX due to obsolescence.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Scott Dial]

Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com added the comment:

I've updated the patch to apply to the current tip. (This patch was an 
opportunity for me to update to an Hg workflow.)

Alexander, I disagree with you about the tests. The unittests use the exact 
same pattern/model that testIteration uses. I find your complaint that a 
unittest, which does test the feature under question, is not good enough, 
despite the prevailing unittests being designed in the same manner, to be 
absurd. Practicality beats purity -- a test that works is better than no test 
at all.

By rejecting unittests on the merits of its coding style, you are creating a 
double-standard for people like me (outside of the core committers), which 
eventually wears out my interest in helping you get this improvement into your 
project. I have been chased around this obstacle course before. For example, 
issue5949, when I was asked to provide unittests for a module that had *none*, 
for a 3-line patch that nobody disagreed it being correct. I had a vested 
interest in jumping through the obstacles of getting that patch in, but here I 
am again being blocked from making a 3-line patch, except this time, purely for 
stylistic reasons.

--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file21060/issue1706039-py3k.patch

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Alexander Belopolsky]

Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:

The tests need to be cleaned up a little.  The setup code should go to setUp() 
method and instead of calling different methods in a loop with a switch over 
method names, it should just have a separate test_ method for each method 
tested.  A with statement can also reduce some boilerplate.

--
nosy:  -BreamoreBoy

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Alexander Belopolsky]

Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:

I don't know how to reproduce the issue and without unit tests this patch 
cannot be committed.

--
assignee: belopolsky - 

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Scott Dial]

Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com added the comment:

The patch includes unittests; the issue is that the tests pass without the 
changes. That is an entirely different state to be in. The tests should be 
committed unless somebody wants to object to the behavior that they are testing 
(although I believe this behavior is already codified in documentation). If the 
tests start failing on someone's platform, then you have a patch already 
waiting to be applied. Nevertheless, I don't see the harm in the patch as-is, 
because it is a quite innocuous change to Py_UniversalNewlineFgets(), unless 
(again) you want to argue about the correctness of that change despite no test 
failing.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Mark Lawrence]

Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk added the comment:

Could somebody with an OS X system please try out the py3k patch, thanks.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Alexander Belopolsky]

Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:

The patch passes tests on OSX, but the old code passes the new tests as well, 
so I am not sure what this patch fixes anymore.  Looking back through the 
messages I see that I had trouble reproducing the problem, then I succeeded, 
but I don't remember the details.

In any case, I am replacing issue1706039-py3k.patch with the same patch against 
recent SVN revision and with tabs replaced by spaces in C code.

--
keywords: +needs review
resolution: accepted - 
stage: commit review - unit test needed
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file18191/issue1706039-py3k.patch

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Mark Lawrence]

Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk added the comment:

The patch adds one line and moves one line in fileobject.c.  The rest of the 
patch is new tests.  I've successfully applied the patch on Windows and the 
tests were fine.  Can someone kindly repeat the tests on OS X as this is where 
the problem was originally reported.

--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.2 -Python 2.6

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Alexander Belopolsky]

Changes by Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net:


--
assignee:  - belopolsky
resolution:  - accepted
stage: patch review - commit review

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Scott Dial]

Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com added the comment:

I've attached a patch that applies cleanly against py3k.

I do not have an in-depth understanding of the new io module, but at a
cursory glance, it seems to not use FILE streams, and would not be
subject to this bug. However, Py_UniversalNewlineFgets() still remains,
and I have patched it accordingly. Additionally, I have added the test
to test_fileio.

py3k doesn't fail any of these tests for me, but the original issue was
only exposed on OS X.

--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file15516/issue1706039-py3k.patch

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Scott Dial]

Changes by Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com:


Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file15517/issue1706039-py3k.patch

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Scott Dial]

Changes by Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com:


Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file15516/issue1706039-py3k.patch

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Antoine Pitrou]

Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:

Does it apply to 3.1?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Daniel Diniz]

Changes by Daniel Diniz aja...@gmail.com:


--
components: +IO
nosy: +benjamin.peterson, pitrou
priority:  - normal
stage:  - patch review
versions: +Python 3.1 -Python 3.0

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Martin v. Löwis]

Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de added the comment:

I have now reverted the patch in r67914. I won't reject the patch
because of Scott's alternative, but leave it open for review. Since
Scott's patch is not approved yet, this is not a release blocker anymore.

--
assignee: loewis - 
priority: release blocker - 

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Alexander Belopolsky]

Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:

I've combined Scott's patch with John's (?) test case in issue1706039.diff.  
Confirmed that the patch fixes the issue on Mac OS X 
10.5.6 (Intel).

Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file12434/issue1706039.diff

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Alexander Belopolsky]

Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:

Maybe not a problem, but an inconsistency: in Py_UniversalNewlineFgets 
clearerr is added inside univ_newline conditional and then again before 
the loop over characters, but in Py_UniversalNewlineFread it is added only 
once before if (!f-f_univ_newline).  I am not sure which approach is 
right, but I don't think there is a reason for the two functions to be 
different.

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[John Smith]

John Smith ebgs...@gmail.com added the comment:

Sorry for inconvenience caused with the patch.
I should've got more reviews before asking it checked in.

I verified eof2.diff-applied-python gets Bus error
and Scott Dial's fileobject.diff fixes this.
(Test was on 9.6.0 Darwin Kernel Version 9.6.0)

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Scott Dial]

Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com added the comment:

They differ because in Py_UniversalNewlineFgets() there is a call to
FLOCKFILE(), and it seemed appropriate to ensure that clearerr() was
called after locking the FILE stream. I certainly pondered over whether
it made a difference to do it before or after, and it would seem to me
that if we are bothering to lock the FILE stream then we would care to
ensure that the first GETC() after locking reaps the benefit of having
called clearerr(). In the cases that we fall into fread and fgets, we
may actually need to be doing:

FLOCKFILE(stream)
clearerr(stream);
result = fgets(buf, n, stream);
FUNLOCKFILE(stream);
return result;

One nitpick is that the testcase was appended to the StdoutTests class
instead of OtherFileTests class, which would seem more appropriate.

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Scott Dial]

Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com added the comment:

I believe the original patch is overreaching. I believe the changes to
fileobject.c should've been much simpler, just as the title describes
(adding clearerr() just before performing reads on the FILE handles).

I've attached a much simpler patch that I believe corrects the issue,
but I don't have an OS X platform to try it on.

--
nosy: +scottdial
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file12425/fileobject.diff

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Martin v. Löwis]

Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de added the comment:

Unfortunately, the patch is broken. The program

fname='test123'
f=open(fname,'w')
f.read()

crashes with the patch applied.

I think I will revert the patch in 2.5.3, release 2.5.4, and reject the
patch.

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Guilherme Polo]

Guilherme Polo ggp...@gmail.com added the comment:

It isn't being careful when calling PyErr_SetFromErrno inside the
Py_UniversalNewlineFread function since this function is being called
all over fileobject after releasing the GIL.. so, isn't this just a
matter of adding pairs of PyGILState_Ensure/PyGILState_Release around
these calls to PyErr_SetFromErrno in this specific function ?

--
nosy: +gpolo

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Guilherme Polo]

Guilherme Polo ggp...@gmail.com added the comment:

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Martin v. Löwis rep...@bugs.python.org wrote:

 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de added the comment:

 It isn't being careful when calling PyErr_SetFromErrno inside the
 Py_UniversalNewlineFread function since this function is being called
 all over fileobject after releasing the GIL.. so, isn't this just a
 matter of adding pairs of PyGILState_Ensure/PyGILState_Release around
 these calls to PyErr_SetFromErrno in this specific function ?

 Perhaps that could fix this problem (or perhaps not - is
 PyGILState_Ensure guaranteed to do the right thing, even in the
 presence of multiple interpreters?)

It is said to be unsupported in that case, but I guess you knew that.

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Martin v. Löwis]

Changes by Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:


--
versions:  -Python 2.5.3

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Martin v. Löwis]

Changes by Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:


--
priority: deferred blocker - release blocker

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Martin v. Löwis]

Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de added the comment:

Thanks for the patch. Committed into the 2.5 branch as r67740. This
still needs to be applied to the other branches.

--
priority: release blocker - deferred blocker

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Martin v. Löwis]

Changes by Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


--
priority: normal - release blocker

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[John Smith]

John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:

Hi, when will this patch be checkedin?

--
versions: +Python 2.5.3, Python 2.6, Python 3.0

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Raghuram Devarakonda]

Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda:


--
nosy:  -draghuram

_
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
_
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list 
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Martin v. Löwis]

Martin v. Löwis added the comment:

jos, can you please provide a real name in Your Details of this
tracker? We cannot accept anonymous/pseudonymous patches.

_
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
_
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list 
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[John Smith]

John Smith added the comment:

What's in a name? :p
Done, anyway.

_
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
_
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list 
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Raghuram Devarakonda]

Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:

I get an error when I try to read 1523853. Is this not moved to the new
tracker or others are able to access it?

--
nosy: +draghuram

_
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
_
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list 
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Martin v. Löwis]

Martin v. Löwis added the comment:

Yes, a number of items were not moved, as SF failed to provide them on
export.

--
nosy: +loewis

_
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
_
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list 
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[jos]

jos added the comment:

Any chance to get this fix commmited in?

--
type:  - behavior

_
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
_
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list 
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue1706039] Added clearerr() to clear EOF state

[Georg Brandl]

Changes by Georg Brandl:


--
assignee:  - loewis

_
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706039
_
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list 
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com