Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've been thinking a bit about a focus for the 2.6 release.
>
> We are now officially starting parallel development of 2.6 and 3.0. I
> really don't expect that we'll be able to merge the easily into the
> 3.0 branch much longer, so effectively 3.0 will be a fork of 2.5.
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Sprints are indeed a fascinating idea and have proven they work, in
> an open-source context -- I do wonder if they could be made to work
> in other contexts, and I'm sure many others are wondering similarly.
"war room" development and other colocation approaches are no
On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:16 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
> Where does it assume that it is safe to case ssize_t -> long?
> That would be a bug.
Is this a bug?
file_readinto(PyFileObject *f, PyObject *args)
{
...
Py_ssize_t ndone, nnow;
...
return PyInt_FromLong((long)ndone);
}
S
On 8/21/06, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2006, at 3:28 AM, Steve Holden wrote:...> It's going to be very interesting to see what comes out of the Google> sprints. I am sure the 64-bitters will be out in force, so there'll be
Hmmm, we'll be working on our laptops, as is ty
On Aug 19, 2006, at 3:28 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
...
> It's going to be very interesting to see what comes out of the Google
> sprints. I am sure the 64-bitters will be out in force, so there'll be
Hmmm, we'll be working on our laptops, as is typical of sprints, so
I'm not sure how many 64-
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The note (4) says that the result will be unicode, but it doesn't say how,
>> in this case, that comes about. This case is confusing because the docs
>> claim string formatting with %s "converts ... using str(
John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The note (4) says that the result will be unicode, but it doesn't say how,
> in this case, that comes about. This case is confusing because the docs
> claim string formatting with %s "converts ... using str()", and yet
> str(a()) returns a bytestring. Do
> Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> It isn't. Python ran on 64-bit Alpha for nearly a decade now (I guess)
> make that "over a decade". the first Python system I built was on
> tru64, back in 1995 (portions of the the initial prototype was written
> on a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 20, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I wonder if it would make sense to focus in 2.6 on making porting of
> 2.6 code to 3.0 easier, rather than trying to introduce new features
> in 2.6. We've done releases without new language feat
I've been thinking a bit about a focus for the 2.6 release.
We are now officially starting parallel development of 2.6 and 3.0. I
really don't expect that we'll be able to merge the easily into the
3.0 branch much longer, so effectively 3.0 will be a fork of 2.5.
I wonder if it would make sense t
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> John J Lee wrote:
>> Is this a bug?
>
> I don't believe so - the string formatting documentation states that the
> result will be unicode if either the format string is unicode or any of the
> objects passed to a %s format code is unicode.
>
> That lat
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> It isn't. Python ran on 64-bit Alpha for nearly a decade now (I guess)
make that "over a decade". the first Python system I built was on
tru64, back in 1995 (portions of the the initial prototype was written
on a 286 box under MS-DOS, but the bulk was developed on tru6
12 matches
Mail list logo
