Mark Donald wrote:
> I frequently have this situation:
>
> try:
> try:
> raise Thing
> except Thing, e:
> # handle Thing exceptions
> raise
> except:
> # handle all exceptions, including Thing
This seems like an unusual pattern. Are you sure you can't use
try
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> But it's been answered already -- we can't change the meaning of
>>> StopIteration() with a value unequal to None, so it has to be a
>>> separate exception, and it should not derive from StopIte
I'm reviewing http://bugs.python.org/issue2591, which is marked as
'security' because it is a potential buffer overflow. almodule.c has
been dropped in py3k, so my impulse is to close the bug as "won't fix".
But I thought I should check in to find out what the policy is before
doing that since it
At 11:27 PM 3/26/2009 +, Paul Moore wrote:
>> What I'd really like is essentially some form of "virtual filesystem"
>> access to stuff addressed relative to a Python package name,
P.J. Eby responded:
> Note that relative to a *Python package name* isn't quite as useful,
> due to namespace pack
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> But it's been answered already -- we can't change the meaning of
>> StopIteration() with a value unequal to None, so it has to be a
>> separate exception, and it should not derive from StopIteration.
>
> How about having StopIteration be a subclass
Lennart Regebro gmail.com> writes:
>
> The people who use pythonlibraries are programmers. It can be expected
> that they are comfortable with the command line.
You probably haven't met lots of Windows (so-called) programmers...
Regards
Antoine.
__
2009/3/25 Antoine Pitrou :
> I'm not a Windows user, but I suppose it boils down to whether people are
> comfortable with the command-line or not (which even many Windows /developers/
> aren't). Since having GUIs for everything is part of the Windows philosophy,
> it's a fair expectation that Pytho
Guido van Rossum wrote:
But it's been answered already -- we can't change the meaning of
StopIteration() with a value unequal to None, so it has to be a
separate exception, and it should not derive from StopIteration.
How about having StopIteration be a subclass of the
new exception? Then thin
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009, andrew cooke wrote:
> Mark Hammond wrote:
> [...I wrote]
>>>
>>> i'm discussing a programming language, not the size of your dick.
>>
>> Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions :) Is there something you feel
>> the need to get off your chest?
>
> i'm not sure how this has end
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
I think in either case a check in
PyIter_Next() would cover most cases
>>
>>> If that's acceptable, then the check might as well
>>> be for None as the StopIteration value, and there's
>>> no need for a new ex
Mark Hammond wrote:
[...I wrote]
> > i'm discussing a programming language, not the size of your dick.
>
> Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions :) Is there something you feel
> the need to get off your chest?
i'm not sure how this has ended up in python-dev; i was responding in
python and if y
On 29/03/2009 1:41 AM, andrew cooke wrote:
Mark Hammond wrote:
On 28/03/2009 9:50 PM, andrew cooke wrote:
Tim Roberts wrote:
[...] IronPython has certainly shown that Python can be successfully
implemented in a JIT compiled VM in a performant way, but it has issues
running C extension modules
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I think in either case a check in
PyIter_Next() would cover most cases
If that's acceptable, then the check might as well
be for None as the StopIteration value, and there's
no need for a new exception.
I don't understand this.
Maybe I misunderstood what you were s
PEP 345 introduces "Requires" and "Provides" wich are
are implemented in Distutils and PyP, but are not
widely used. 40 out of +4000 if I remember correctly. Martin will
correct me here if I am wrong.
Here are the actual numbers of packages that had a certain specifier
in atleast one o
Hello,
I have just applied to be considered as GSoC mentor with the PSF,
notably work on Roundup. (My ID is 'stefan')
I'm a long-term Roundup user and contributor. My recent contributions
include the XMLRPC interface, as well as many bug fixes and
enhancements. I also spearheaded the migrati
On Mar 28, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
To be concrete, I think distutils should support (among other things):
- entry points for plugins
- entry points as used for producing console and windowed "scripts"
This strikes me as a nice-to-have, but:
1. I don't think they're two distinct fea
On Mar 27, 2009, at 9:25 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 03:06 PM 3/27/2009 -0500, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
They both aim at the
same goal besides a few differences, and they both rely
on a new metadata introduced by setuptools, wich is.
"install_requires". This new metadata extends the metadata.
describ
2009/3/29 Stephen J. Turnbull :
> I really don't see how that kind of thing can be easily supported by a
> Python module maintainer, unless they're also the downstream packager.
Almost none. But in my understanding, that's not what most linux
packagers vendors ask about - they will handle the dep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 28, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I really don't see how that kind of thing can be easily supported by a
Python module maintainer, unless they're also the downstream packager.
They simply can't. As a package developer, I'd
Mark Hammond wrote:
> On 28/03/2009 9:50 PM, andrew cooke wrote:
>> Tim Roberts wrote:
>>> [...] IronPython has certainly shown that Python can be successfully
>>> implemented in a JIT compiled VM in a performant way, but it has issues
>>> running C extension modules.
>>>
>>> I'll be curious to se
Eric Smith writes:
> I was just pointing out that bdist_rpm has users, and it's not likely to
> be abandoned.
OK, I see. I don't think there's a reason to remove useful
functionality from the stdlib, unless it's clearly superseded by a
similar module.
> I don't see how they differ. It's def
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Kevin Teague wrote:
>
>
> Tarek, was there any further discussion on "Requires" vs "install_requires"
> or any decisions made on what to do about this?
>
> (I've got a +1 ready for including 'install_requires' in the standard
> package metadata and marking 'Requir
At 06:52 AM 3/28/2009 -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 2. In addition to the "yield from" syntax for delegating to a
> subgenerator, also add new syntax for returning values from
> subgenerators so that the basic "return X" can continue to trigger
> SyntaxError.
>
> Since option 2 would most like
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Eric Smith writes:
> And I personally use bdist_rpm for my work, which I distribute to a farm
> of servers under my control. So no doubt it's used.
Sure, but use for internal distribution is very different from to
problem its being asked to solve now, isn't it? I
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I still think raise is out due to the fact that it would trigger
> subsequent except clauses. Guido has (sensibly) ruled out raising
> StopIteration and complaining if it has value in old code, since there
> is too much code which cases StopIt
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> The new exception could either be a designated (built-in) subclass of
>> StopIteration, or not;
>
> I think it would have to not be; otherwise any existing
> code that catches StopIteration would catch the new
> exce
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Ben Finney <
bignose+hates-s...@benfinney.id.au >wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>
> > I don't mind the setuptools implementation being used as a basis
> > (assuming it gets contributed), but *independently* I think a
> > specfication is needed what version st
Michele Simionato wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> Antoine Pitrou:
>>> As a matter of fact, the people whom this PEP is supposed to benefit haven't
>>> expressed a lot of enthusiasm right now. That's why it looks so academic.
>> That's because most of us who might l
2009/3/28 Stephen J. Turnbull :
>
> Sure, but use for internal distribution is very different from to
> problem its being asked to solve now, isn't it? IIUC, you're
> basically using RPM as an installer for a standalone application,
> where you set policy at both ends, packaging and installation.
29 matches
Mail list logo
