I have an application which runs on 2.4.4 and is known not to run on 2.4.1 or
2.5, and I'm trying to install 2.4.4 from the website.
Whenever I download and compile the 2.4.4 sources, the executable shows up as
2.4.1 which will not work for my application.
I've downloaded both the bzip and gzip
Patrick Maupin schrieb:
Although it is often quite easy to find and download a module for use
with a prior version of Python, it would be really convenient if all
of these modules were bundled up together and available as a single
download, especially when it comes to Windows users and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
This does raise an interesting question, though, since I'm about to get
into PEP authorship myself. Have I missed an official way to propose
alternatives or resurrect a languishing PEP?
See PEP 1. The PEP champion is obliged to integrate feedback into the
PEP,
Rajstennaj Barrabas schrieb:
I have an application which runs on 2.4.4 and is known not to run on 2.4.1 or
2.5, and I'm trying to install 2.4.4 from the website.
Whenever I download and compile the 2.4.4 sources, the executable shows up as
2.4.1 which will not work for my application.
Hi list,
Sorry for the repetition, but since nobody has commented on patch 1644818
for about a week I thought perhaps I should ask again.
Is there anything I need to do before the patch is ready for inclusion?
As a remainder, this patch (which can be seen at
Sorry for the repetition, but since nobody has commented on patch
1644818 for about a week I thought perhaps I should ask again.
Is there anything I need to do before the patch is ready for inclusion?
No; basically, you just need to be patient now. Do you have an urgent
need to get this
Miguel Lobo schrieb:
Also, seeing that there are almost 400 open patches in the patch
tracker, I'm concerned that this patch will be forgotten and left to
rot, which would be a pity IMO.
Of course, the submitters of the 300 other patches say the same. It is
just too difficult to catch up, so
Personally, I can't apply it as-is right now, since a) I would have to
check that the test case conditionalization works fine, and b) I would
have to come up with a patch for the Windows build process.
Sorry, I couldn't understand the second point. Why would you have to patch
the Windows
On 3/12/07, Miguel Lobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I'm intrigued about this review 5 other patches procedure you
suggest. What exactly would be involved in such a review? Please note that
I hadn't touched CPython code before I wrote my patch and I haven't been
following CPython
This is how we suck you in... ;)
I see :-). Funny I didn't see this procedure mentioned in the patch
submission guidelines ;-)
You don't have to be an expert to review patches. The following
procedure would qualify you:
1. Find a patch that it appears no one has ever touched (0
Miguel Lobo schrieb:
Personally, I can't apply it as-is right now, since a) I would have to
check that the test case conditionalization works fine, and b) I would
have to come up with a patch for the Windows build process.
Sorry, I couldn't understand the second point. Why
This patch was posted by koder_ua.
I think that Request must have a request type parameters, so people
can send HEAD requests easily.
But it seems to me that keeping a request history in the module is bad,
because it can easily grow up to thousands and explode (a.k.a. consume
too much memory).
On 3/11/07, Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Collin,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:53:45PM -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
bool() and abs() aren't syntax, so I would never look in operator.
abs() is not syntax but bool() is part of every syntactic construction
that takes a truth value
Miguel Lobo schrieb:
My own patch does not include documentation. I assume documentation
would only be needed for patches that add new functionality (as opposed
to fixing problems)?
Typically, yes. If the bug fix would also change the behavior of
existing programs, that change should be
what's the situation for Py3k? Should it always use absolute import there?
On 3/10/07, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, all C code that needs to import a module uses
PyImport_ImportModule which
(1) calls __builtin__.__import__
(2) attempts relative imports
Most of the time,
I need to integrate the extra test file into a project file (probably
pythoncore).
The change to pythoncore.vcproj is already in the patch I posted. Otherwise
I wouldn't have been able to run my test under Windows.
Yet, the same can be said for most other patches: they are all for the
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 07:20:56PM +0100, Miguel Lobo wrote:
I'm not complaining or anything, and no offence meant to anyone, just
explaining my point of view. I might still try to do the 5 patch
review thing, depending on how long it takes me. But if I choose not
to do so,
Absolutely right. I'll withdraw the lightweight version. It's done
enough damage.
On 3/11/07, Andrew McNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote two versions of the dict views refactoring. One that turns
d.keys() into list(d.keys()) and d.iterkeys() into iter(d.keys()).
This one is pretty robust
On 3/12/07, Miguel Lobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet, the same can be said for most other patches: they are all for the
benefit of users running into the same respective problems.
Agreed. What I mean is that this fasttrack system where the submitter has
to do some extra work seems to
Miguel Lobo schrieb:
I need to integrate the extra test file into a project file (probably
pythoncore).
The change to pythoncore.vcproj is already in the patch I posted.
Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to run my test under Windows.
Ah, ok, I misremembered. It is the UNIX
IMHO yes, for all occurences in the core code.
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
what's the situation for Py3k? Should it always use absolute import there?
On 3/10/07, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, all C code that needs to import a module uses
PyImport_ImportModule which
(1)
It won't benefit the Python core either, because we just don't use
builtin submodules. In fact, I find the notion of builtin submodules
somewhat strange.
Please excuse my curiosity, but why do you find it strange?
P.S. Thanks to all for the considerate responses.
Regards,
Miguel
Yes.
On 3/12/07, Collin Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/11/07, Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Collin,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:53:45PM -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
bool() and abs() aren't syntax, so I would never look in operator.
abs() is not syntax but bool() is part
Hi Collin,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:19:26AM -0500, Collin Winter wrote:
iter() is part of every syntactic construction that takes an iterator
argument (for, listcomps, gencomps, ...). Should it go in operator as
well?
Historically, things that have a slot go in 'operator'. So that would
On 3/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10:22 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I'm hoping Collin will continue his excellent work on 2to3. Hopefully
he'll get help from others in writing docs aimed at teaching the
c.l.py crowd how to use it and what to expect.
I'm sure
Miguel Lobo schrieb:
It won't benefit the Python core either, because we just don't use
builtin submodules. In fact, I find the notion of builtin submodules
somewhat strange.
Please excuse my curiosity, but why do you find it strange?
Normally, the builtin modules are the ones
Normally, the builtin modules are the ones that are shipped in Python
core. I know you can get a bigger builtins list through freeze, or
through a custom Setup.local, but it is fairly uncommon to do that.
Also, having extension modules in a namespace is something that I
would normally not do. I
Miguel Lobo schrieb:
Perhaps one example would help to clarify what I mean. I see that there
is an xml.parsers.expat module, with the following content:
Interface to the Expat non-validating XML parser.
__version__ = '$Revision: 17640 $'
from pyexpat import *
Then,
Miguel Lobo wrote:
In fact I'm probably the person the
patch will benefit least, because I have already run into the problem
and know how to solve it.
For me, the personal benefit of getting a patch applied
would be so that I didn't have to keep re-applying it
to new versions of Python, and
For me, the personal benefit of getting a patch applied
would be so that I didn't have to keep re-applying it
to new versions of Python, and that I could distribute
code relying on the patch to others without requiring
*them* to use a patched version of Python as well.
What you describe is
30 matches
Mail list logo
