Tim Peters wrote:
> It would be best if svn:eol-style were set to native during initial
> conversion from CVS, on all files not marked binary in CVS.
Ok, I'll add that to the PEP. Not sure how to implement it, yet...
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev maili
OK, TerminatingException and the removal of bare 'except' clauses are now out.
I also stripped out the transition plan to basically just add
BaseException in Python 2.5, tweak docs to recommend future-proof
practices, and then change everything in Python 3.0 . This will
prevent any nasty performa
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 04:30, Benji York wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>Granted. What is the cost of waiting a bit longer to see if it (or
> >>something else) gets more usable and would hit the mark better than svn?
> >
> > It depends on what "a bit" is. Waiting a
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:39:41 -0500, skip wrote:
> Lalo> You can, however, convert from CVS to baz (arch), and from there
> Lalo> to bzr.
>
> Would this be with cscvs? According to the cscvs wiki page at
>
> http://wiki.gnuarch.org/cscvs
>
> cscvs is current unmaintained and can't h
You don't need something like a buggy SWIG to put non-strings in dir().
>>> class C: pass
...
>>> C.__dict__[3] = "bad wolf"
>>> dir(C)
[3, '__doc__', '__module__']
This is likely to happen "legitimately", for instance in a class that allows
x.y and x['y'] to mean the same thing. (if the user ass
[Martin v. Löwis]
> I have placed a new version of the PEP on
>
> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0347.html
...
+1 from me. But, I don't think my vote should count much, and (sorry)
Guido's even less: what do the people who frequently check in want?
That means people like you (Martin), Michael
[Bryan O'Sullivan]
> > The centralised SCM tools all create a wall between core developers
> > (i.e. people with commit access to the central repository) and
people
> > who are on the fringes. Outsiders may be able to get anonymous
> > read-only access, but they are left up to their own devices i
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 23:29 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> That may be off-topic for python-dev, but can you please explain how
> this works?
It's simple enough. In place of a central server that hosts a set of
repositories and a number of branches, and to which only a few people
have access,
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> However, it's worth pointing out that with a distributed SCM - it
> doesn't really matter which one you use - it is simple to put together a
> workflow that operates in the same way as a centralised SCM. You lose
> nothing in the translation. What you gain is several-fol
On Aug 15, 2005, at 5:04 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> The centralised SCM tools all create a wall between core developers
> (i.e. people with commit access to the central repository) and people
> who are on the fringes. Outsiders may be able to get anonymous
> read-only access, but they are left
Pardon me for coming a little late to the SCM discussion, but I thought
I would throw a few comments in.
A little background: I've used Perforce, CVS, Subversion and BitKeeper
for a number of years. Currently, I hack on Mercurial
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial>.
However, I'm not here to try an
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> (1) Please use the SF patch manager.
>
> (2) Please don't propose adding more bare "except:" clauses to the
> standard library.
>
> (3) I think a better patch is to use str(word)[:n] instead of word[:n].
Sorry to jump in, but this same patch was proposed for ipython, a
Nicholas Bastin wrote:
> Not completely. More like -0 at the moment. We need a better system,
> but I think we shouldn't just pick a system because it's the one the
> PEP writer preferred - there should be some sort of effort to test a
> few systems (including bug trackers).
But that's how the P
On 8/15/05, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An argument _for_ TerminatingException as a class is that I can
> define my own subclasses of TerminatingException without forcing
> it to being a subclass of KeyboardInterrupt or SystemExit.
And how would that help you? Would your own e
Toby Dickenson wrote:
> On Monday 15 August 2005 14:16, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> The rationale for including TerminatingException in the PEP would also be
> satisfied by having a TerminatingExceptions tuple (in the exceptions
> module?). It makes sense to express the classification of except
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 12:27 -0400, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
> On 8/8/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nicholas Bastin wrote:
> > > It's a mature product. I would hope that that would count for
> > > something.
> >
> > Sure. But so is subversion.
>
> I will then assume that you
On 8/15/05, Toby Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 15 August 2005 14:16, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> > -1 on replacing "except (KeyboardInterrupt, SystemExit)" with "except
> > TerminatingException".
>
> The rationale for including TerminatingException in the PEP would also be
> s
OK, I will take this as BDFL pronouncement that ditching bare
'except's is just not going to happen. Had to try. =)
And I will strip out the TerminatingException proposal.
-Brett
On 8/15/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm with Raymond here.
>
> On 8/15/05, Raymond Hettinger
(1) Please use the SF patch manager.
(2) Please don't propose adding more bare "except:" clauses to the
standard library.
(3) I think a better patch is to use str(word)[:n] instead of word[:n].
On 8/14/05, Michael Krasnyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Recently I've found that rlco
I'm with Raymond here.
On 8/15/05, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Brett]
> > This obviously goes against what Guido last said he
> > wanted, but I hope I can convince him to get rid of bare 'except's.
>
> -1 on eliminating bare excepts. This unnecessarily breaks tons of code
> w
On 14-aug-2005, at 23:43, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to build CVS HEAD on OSX 10.4.2 (Xcode 2.1), with a
>> checkout that is less than two hours old. I'm building a standard
>> unix tree (no framework install):
>>
>
> I just committed what I think is a bugfix
On 8/8/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nicholas Bastin wrote:
> > It's a mature product. I would hope that that would count for
> > something.
>
> Sure. But so is subversion.
I will then assume that you and I have different ideas of what 'mature' means.
> So I should then rem
On Monday 15 August 2005 14:16, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> -1 on replacing "except (KeyboardInterrupt, SystemExit)" with "except
> TerminatingException".
The rationale for including TerminatingException in the PEP would also be
satisfied by having a TerminatingExceptions tuple (in the exceptio
> > It is completely Pythonic to have bare keywords
> > apply a useful default as an aid to readability and ease of coding.
[Oleg]
>Bare "while:" was rejected because of "while WHAT?!". Bare
"except:"
> does not cause "except WHAT?!" reaction. Isn't it funny?! (-:
It's both funny and interest
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:16:47AM -0400, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> It is completely Pythonic to have bare keywords
> apply a useful default as an aid to readability and ease of coding.
Bare "while:" was rejected because of "while WHAT?!". Bare "except:"
does not cause "except WHAT?!" reaction
[Brett]
> This obviously goes against what Guido last said he
> wanted, but I hope I can convince him to get rid of bare 'except's.
-1 on eliminating bare excepts. This unnecessarily breaks tons of code
without offering ANY compensating benefits. There are valid use cases
for this construct. It
Stephen Thorne wrote:
> I can't see an obvious solution, but perhaps generators should get
> special treatment regardless. Reading over this code it looks like the
> generator is exhausted all at once, instead of incrementally..
Indeed - str.join uses a multipass approach to build the final string
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Granted. What is the cost of waiting a bit longer to see if it (or
>>something else) gets more usable and would hit the mark better than svn?
>
> It depends on what "a bit" is. Waiting a month would be fine; waiting
> two years might be pointles
28 matches
Mail list logo
