Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 413 open ( -7) / 3521 closed (+11) / 3934 total ( +4)
Bugs: 946 open ( +2) / 6400 closed ( +9) / 7346 total (+11)
RFE : 248 open ( -1) / 246 closed ( +1) / 494 total ( +0)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Auto-comp
On 12/29/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett Cannon schrieb:
> I originally posted this list to python-3000 since I figured we could
> be more aggressive with Py3K, but Guido said I should move it over
> here and just be aggressive in 2.6.
Please follow PEP 11 in doing so. Th
Brett Cannon schrieb:
> I originally posted this list to python-3000 since I figured we could
> be more aggressive with Py3K, but Guido said I should move it over
> here and just be aggressive in 2.6.
Please follow PEP 11 in doing so. This means you cannot remove the code
in Python 2.6, only break
Jeremy Kloth schrieb:
>> I think you understand exactly what is happening. It is happening for
>> good reasons. Rather than asking for a change in semantics, I
>> recommend that you deal with it, either in your Python code, or in
>> your extension. It's not likely to change.
>
> I don't believe I
Jeremy Kloth schrieb:
> 1) is subclassing Python classes in C as a static type supported? Even if
> they
> would be declared on the heap, they would be bound to the first loaded Python
> class.
As you found out: no, this isn't supported.
To work around, you can wrap the extension module with P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 29, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But my main objection to suggesting that these constants ought to be
> used is that open() is a built-in but you would have to import os to
> be able to call the seek method on the object it retur
On Friday 29 December 2006 16:55, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> If we want to make the seek API more 21st century, why not use keyword
> arguments?
I'd prefer that myself. I'm not advocating the constants as a way to go
forward, but was simply expressing a preference for the named constant over a
On 12/29/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fred L. Drake, Jr. schrieb:
> > Speaking strictly for myself: I don't think I *have* to use them, but I do
> > prefer to use them because I don't like magic constants that affect what a
> > function does in code; I'd rather have a named c
Fred L. Drake, Jr. schrieb:
> Speaking strictly for myself: I don't think I *have* to use them, but I do
> prefer to use them because I don't like magic constants that affect what a
> function does in code; I'd rather have a named constant for readability's
> sake. Maybe I just can't keep enou
On 12/29/06, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/29/06, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > def spam():
> > x = 5
> > class eggs(object):
> > x = 6
> > def spam(self):
> > return x
> > return eggs
> >
> > spam()().spam() should return 5.
> >
>
> the question
On 12/29/06, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> def spam():
> x = 5
> class eggs(object):
> x = 6
> def spam(self):
> return x
> return eggs
>
> spam()().spam() should return 5.
>
the question that arises is -- is this what we wanted?
if i had to read such code, where i
On 12/19/06, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to my understanding of the object model, the code of snippet 1
> and snippet 2 should be equivalent. a class is just a "special function"
> that returns its locals automatically and passes them to the metaclass
> constructor:
>
> --- snippet 1
On Friday 29 December 2006 10:50, Oleg Broytmann wrote:
>I don't remember any resolution. I think submitting a small module to
> the patch tracker would be the simplest way to revive the discussion.
We have a handful of interesting descriptors we use for Zope 3 development:
http://svn.z
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 09:55:46AM -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> It may have been discussed before, but there does not seem to have
> been any resolution on the issue. Am I missing something or did the
> discussion just kind of stop, with no solution or agreement ever
> reached? In which case, re
It may have been discussed before, but there does not seem to have
been any resolution on the issue. Am I missing something or did the
discussion just kind of stop, with no solution or agreement ever
reached? In which case, reviving the question is not a bad idea, is
it?
On 12/29/06, Oleg Broytman
On Wednesday 27 December 2006 12:15, Jenny Zhao (zhzhao) wrote:
> Hi Python developers,
>
> I am using python to write a testing tools, currently this tool
> only supports skinny protocol. I am planning to add SIP and MGCP
> support as well, wondering if you have written these protocol
> stacks be
Hi Python developers,
I am using python to write a testing tools, currently this tool only
supports skinny protocol. I am planning to add SIP and MGCP support as
well, wondering if you have written these protocol stacks before which
can be leveraged from.
thanks
Jenny
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056782.html
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:40:05AM -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> To this end, should a cachedproperty builtin be included to do this
The issue was discussed a year ago:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-Se
18 matches
Mail list logo
