Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 2/22/07, Gabriel Becedillas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd hit an access violation inside PyErr_WriteUnraisable when a
>> non-exception instance was raised. The call to PyExceptionClass_Name
>> with a non-exception instance is yielding an invalid pointer.
>> We are embed
PJE:
> Then don't do that, as it's bad style for Python 3.x. ;-)
It's bad style for 3.x only if Python goes with this interface. If
it stays with the 2.x style then there's no problem. There
may also be solutions which are cleaner and which don't
mutate the exception instance.
I am not proposi
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 03:38 PM 2/26/2007 -0700, Andrew Dalke wrote:
>
> > NO_END_OF_RECORD = ParserError("Cannot find end of record")
>
> Then don't do that, as it's bad style for Python 3.x. ;-)
I don't like that answer. I can think of legitimate
reasons for wanting to pre-create exceptions
At 03:38 PM 2/26/2007 -0700, Andrew Dalke wrote:
>Guido's talk at PyCon said:
>
> > Use raise E(arg).with_traceback(tb)
> > instead of raise E, arg, tb
>
>That seems strange to me because of the mutability. Looking through
>the back discussions on this list I see Guido commented:
> http://m
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> RKN = reverse Knuth numbering?
No, for RKN you'd have to start with 3141.5926... (an
infinite number of digits following) and drop one off
the end each time... although it would take rather a
long time to get to the final release then. :-(
--
Greg
___
On 2/26/07, Andrew Dalke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My concern when I saw Guido's keynote was the worry that
people do/might write code like this
NO_END_OF_RECORD = ParserError("Cannot find end of record")
def parse_record(input_file):
...
raise NO_END_OF_RECORD
...
FWIW, you can
Guido's talk at PyCon said:
> Use raise E(arg).with_traceback(tb)
> instead of raise E, arg, tb
That seems strange to me because of the mutability. Looking through
the back discussions on this list I see Guido commented:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-February/005689.ht
Jordan Greenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > How would this change be helpful? I'm utterly mystified by these
> > suggestions that bool would be more useful if it didn't behave like an
> > int in arithmetic.
>
> I don't think anyones really saying it would be more
Thanks! Hopefully someone will be able to get to it in the near future.
-Brett
On 2/26/07, Gabriel Becedillas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On 2/22/07, Gabriel Becedillas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'd hit an access violation inside PyErr_WriteUnraisable when a
> >> n
On 2/25/07, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/3/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In #1626545, Anton Tropashko requests that object.h should be
> > renamed, because it causes conflicts with other software.
> >
> > I would like to comply with this requests for 2.6, a
Adam Olsen wrote:
> That would depend on whether Joachim's wait() refers to the individual
> tasks' calls or the scheduler's call. I assumed it referred to the
> scheduler. In the basic form it would literally be select.select(),
> which has O(n) cost and often fairly large n.
The wait(events, ti
On 2/25/07, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:17:03AM -0700, Adam Olsen wrote:
> > > E.g. have a wait(events = [], timeout = -1) method would be sufficient
> > > for most cases, where an event would specify
> >
> > I agree with everything except this.
Armin Rigo wrote:
> I just realized that this is not really true in the present context.
> If the goal is to support programs that "look like" they are
> multi-threaded, i.e. don't use callbacks, as I think is Joachim's goal,
> then most of the time the wait() function would be only called with a
>
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> How would this change be helpful? I'm utterly mystified by these
> suggestions that bool would be more useful if it didn't behave like an
> int in arithmetic.
I don't think anyones really saying it would be more useful, it
obviously wouldn't, since like Greg said, it
14 matches
Mail list logo
