Perhaps a rewrite could target 3.0 and 2.6 could use a backported
version of this *if* py3k compatibility mode is enabled? I'd love to
see at least the 3.0 version cleaned up.
--Guido
On 4/17/07, Fred L. Drake, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 22:37, Jason Orendorff wrote
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 22:37, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> The right way to implement these quirks is using new-style classes and
> properties. Right now minidom uses old-style classes and lots of
> hackery, and it's pretty broken. (Another example--there is an
> Attr._set_prefix method, but it
On 4/17/07, Jason Orendorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely nobody is subclassing these classes. You don't subclass DOM
> interfaces--the DOM doesn't work that way. So this change should be
> OK. Right?
People are definitely subclassing those classes:
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&
I'm working on minidom's DOM Level 1 compliance, targeting Python 2.6.
We have some bugs involving DOM property behavior. For example,
setting the nodeValue attribute of an Element is supposed to have no
effect. We don't implement this.
The right way to implement these quirks is using new-style
On the platforms that can run both 32 and 64bit python, such as
x86_64, distutils builds both 32 and 64 bit libraries in the same
directory such as build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.5.
This can be easily fixed by placing 64 bit libraries in
build/lib64.linux-x86_64-2.5 instead.
On the other hand it may be
On 4/16/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Collin Winter]
> > This should be fixed in r54844. The problem was that the availability
> > of the urlfetch resource wasn't being checked early enough and so
> > test_support.run_suite() was converting the ResourceDenied exception
> > int
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> an activity that is always worthwhile is bug and patch review. Pick a
> patch or a bug report that hasn't seen any feedback (there are,
> unfortunately, plenty of them), and try to analyse it.
Sergio, welcome.
As Martin said, bugs and patch revision is a fruitful activit
Tim Peters wrote:
> can wait a couple months, I'd be happy to own it. A possible saving
> grace for ln() is that while the mathematical function is one-to-one,
I'm working right now in making the old operation to pass the new tests
ok.
Soon I'll cut a branch to work publicly on this (good idea
