On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:16:35PM -0600, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> The procedure implemented by http://bugs.python.org/issue812369
> seems to be a better idea.
After some experimentation I realize this idea is not ready yet.
The main problem comes from references to Python objects that
modules ke
http://bugs.python.org/issue7147
Passes test (no big surprise there). Doesn't yet include any changes
to documentation
or Misc/NEWS entry. Should this be decided I will take a look at that.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http:/
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
(-1)**.5
> (6.123031769111886e-17+1j)
>
> Don't we have a precision problem here? 0.5 is supposed to be represented
> exactly, isn't it?
0.5 is represented exactly, but complex.__pow__ makes no pretence of
being correctly rounded (and ma
Mark Dickinson gmail.com> writes:
>
> There's one respect in which complex is slightly more tightly
> integrated in py3k than in trunk: raising a negative number to a
> non-integer power (e.g., (-1)**0.5) gives a complex result in py3k.
>>> (-1)**.5
(6.123031769111886e-17+1j)
Don't we have a p
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> pobox.com> writes:
>>
>> I notice that WITHOUT_COMPLEX still appears in Python.h and several .c files
>> but nowhere else in the 2.6, 2.7 or 3.1 source, most particularly not in
>> configure or pyconfig.h.in. Are builds --without-complex s
Thanks all!
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>>
Here's another one barry:
http://bugs.python.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> We have trouble staying
> compatible with lots of build options (see how --without-threads is little
> exercised).
I don't know if folks deploying on embedded platforms are using these
options (directly or indirectly), but expect that's th
pobox.com> writes:
>
> I notice that WITHOUT_COMPLEX still appears in Python.h and several .c files
> but nowhere else in the 2.6, 2.7 or 3.1 source, most particularly not in
> configure or pyconfig.h.in. Are builds --without-complex still supported?
> Has it been tested at any time in the recen
[I originally sent this reply to Skip instead of to the list; apologies.]
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM, wrote:
> I notice that WITHOUT_COMPLEX still appears in Python.h and several .c files
> but nowhere else in the 2.6, 2.7 or 3.1 source, most particularly not in
> configure or pyconfig.h.
s...@pobox.com wrote:
Eric> I haven't tested it, but I still see WITHOUT_COMPLEX in trunk and py3k
Eric> branches. In py3k, it's referenced in:
...
Sure, but is it ever exercised? A name like WITHOUT_COMPLEX suggests that
it should be flipped on/off by configure using --without-com
Eric> I haven't tested it, but I still see WITHOUT_COMPLEX in trunk and
py3k
Eric> branches. In py3k, it's referenced in:
...
Sure, but is it ever exercised? A name like WITHOUT_COMPLEX suggests that
it should be flipped on/off by configure using --without-complex, but that
script
On Oct 15, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Barry Warsaw
wrote:
On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
Here's another one barry:
http://bugs.python.org/issue7120
We should get this in - it's a regression I introduced awhile ago
for
envir
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>> Here's another one barry:
>>
>> http://bugs.python.org/issue7120
>>
>> We should get this in - it's a regression I introduced awhile ago for
>> environments without the multiprocessing modu
s...@pobox.com wrote:
I notice that WITHOUT_COMPLEX still appears in Python.h and several .c files
but nowhere else in the 2.6, 2.7 or 3.1 source, most particularly not in
configure or pyconfig.h.in. Are builds --without-complex still supported?
Has it been tested at any time in the recent past?
On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
Here's another one barry:
http://bugs.python.org/issue7120
We should get this in - it's a regression I introduced awhile ago for
environments without the multiprocessing module using logging.
Was this a regression in 2.6.2 or 2.6.3? I think i
I notice that WITHOUT_COMPLEX still appears in Python.h and several .c files
but nowhere else in the 2.6, 2.7 or 3.1 source, most particularly not in
configure or pyconfig.h.in. Are builds --without-complex still supported?
Has it been tested at any time in the recent past?
Skip
_
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Scott Dial wrote:
>
>> I suspect this release is primarily to quench the problems with
>> distutils, but..
>>
>> http://bugs.python.org/issue5949
>>
>> doesn't seem to have been addressed by you. And this seems like
Le Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:27:37 -0500, Daniel Stutzbach a écrit :
>
> Here is my understanding of the proposed procedure:
>
> 1. Replace modules in sys.modules with weakrefs 2. Run the garbage
> collector
> 3. Replace globals in any remaining modules with None 4. Run the garbage
> collector
>
> Is
18 matches
Mail list logo
