-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Amaury Forgeot d'Arc wrote:
| I see that some tests use os.unlink. They should use
| test_support.unlink() instead.
Old stuff. Fix just committed.
- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Hello,
I am trying to get Python 2.5.2 working for an IA32 system. The
compilation is done on an Ubuntu 8.04.1 dev system. I am using a custom
gcc and ld specific to the IA32 system.
This is my makefile:
##
BUILD_DEST = /i686-custom-kernel
CC =
On Jul 29, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Lupusoru, Razvan A wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to get Python 2.5.2 working for an IA32 system. The
compilation is done on an Ubuntu 8.04.1 dev system. I am using a
custom gcc and ld specific to the IA32 system.
This is my makefile:
+1 as well.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Benjamin Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The parser module exports each function and type twice, once with AST in
the name, once with ST. Since AST now has a different meaning
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Cameron Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leaving aside the 0.2 = 0 converstion, shouldn't read() raise an
exception if asked for 1 bytes? Or is there a legitimate use for read(0)
with which I was not previously aware?
Indeed. read(0) is quite often generated
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastien Loisel wrote:
What are the odds of this thing going in?
I don't know. Guido has said nothing about it so far this
time round, and his is the only opinion that matters in the
end.
I'd rather stay silent until a
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Mark Hammond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS
Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS
free environment...
In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of the form:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But would it be totally outlandish to propose A**B for matrix
multiplication? I can't think of what matrix exponentiation would
mean...
Before even reading this paragraph, A**B came to my mind, so I suspect
it would be
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastien Loisel wrote:
What are the odds of this thing going in?
I don't know. Guido has said nothing about it so far this
time round, and his is
Guido van Rossum wrote:
last time '@' was considered as a new operator, that character had no
uses in the language at all. Now it is the decorator marker.
The only alternatives left would seem to be ?, ! or $,
none of which look particularly multiplicationish.
But would it be totally
Sebastien Loisel wrote:
let
me describe MATLAB's approach to this. It features a complete suite of
matrix operators (+-*/\^), and their pointwise variants (.+ .- ./ .*
.^)
That was considered before as well, but rejected on
the grounds that the dot-prefixed operators were too
cumbersome to use
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
Further, while A**B is not so common, A**n is quite common (for
integral n, in the sense of repeated matrix multiplication). So a
matrix multiplication operator really should come with a power
operator cousin.
Which obviously should be @@ :-)
Well, Fortress probably
Dear Greg,
Thank you for your email.
In MATLAB, the elementwise operations are probably
used fairly infrequently. But numpy arrays are often
used to vectorise what are otherwise scalar operations,
in which case elementwise operations are used almost
exclusively.
Your assessment of
13 matches
Mail list logo
