Tarek Ziadé writes:
> Now by "alternate" if you mean a proposal that is completely different
> from what is in the PEP, I don't recall that we had any viable
> alternative proposals in the discussions. By "viable" I mean something
> that provides what we need : a schema that allows us to compare
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:49:33 +0100, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tarek_Ziad=E9?=
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
> > I don't see any information in the PEP for alternate proposals that were
> > made during its drafting. It's customary to explain what alternative
> > proposals ha
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Tarek Ziadé writes:
>
>> I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
>> will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
>> further discussion which won't take things any further, I propose to
>> all
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 21:24, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2009/12/10 Lennart Regebro :
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 20:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> Since the intent of IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL is to make doctests immune to
>>> implementation version specific changes, it seems to me that extending its
Tarek Ziadé writes:
> I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
> will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
> further discussion which won't take things any further, I propose to
> allow final comments from python-dev and then look for a final
2009/12/10 Lennart Regebro :
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 20:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Since the intent of IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL is to make doctests immune to
>> implementation version specific changes, it seems to me that extending its
>> technical meaning is required to carry out its intent.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 20:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Since the intent of IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL is to make doctests immune to
> implementation version specific changes, it seems to me that extending its
> technical meaning is required to carry out its intent.
Would this be considered bugfixy enou
2009/12/10 Lennart Regebro :
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 00:47, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> I think so, but what you need is:
>>>
>>> throw_an_exception()
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
...DesiredException: ...
>>
>> No you don't. From the manual:
>>
>> """
>
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 00:47, Paul Moore wrote:
When the IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL doctest option is is specified,
everything following the leftmost colon is ignored.
"""
Note that the difference is *before* the leftmost colon.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 00:49, Ian Bicki
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
>> but "Standard"
>> doesn't really express what we want to achieve here I think,
>
> I think StandardVersion is fine.
I prefer Sta
Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
>
> Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
> but "Standard"
> doesn't really express what we want to achieve here I think,
I think StandardVersion is fine.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Pyt
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Also, the word "rational" is not familiar to me in the context of versions;
is this term known outside of this proposal? I couldn't find any reference
to it.
Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
but "Standard"
doesn't really express what we w
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Floris Bruynooghe
wrote:
[..]
>> N.N[.N]+[{abc}N[.N]+][.postN][.devN]
>>
>> Notice that the last two +'s are gone, and overall I think this is more
>> consistent psuedo-code.
>
> That's quite readable and more consistent then the original
> pseudo-code, I like it.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
[..]
> Great work, Tarek. I think you've managed to establish a good body of
> knowledge on this and the proposal seems sound.
Thanks :)
>
> That said, I think the terms ``LooseVersion`` and ``StrictVersion`` are less
> than optimal. Really, w
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
> 2009/12/10 Darren Dale :
>> Those aren't new proposals, though, they already exist in distutils.
>
> I see. Thanks for clarifying –– maybe the PEP should better explain this.
It is already pretty clear:
"Distutils currently provides a Strict
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> More English language fixes:
I have just applied them. Thanks.
Tarek
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mai
2009/12/10 Darren Dale :
> Those aren't new proposals, though, they already exist in distutils.
I see. Thanks for clarifying –– maybe the PEP should better explain this.
\malthe
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/ma
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:24 AM, sstein...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
>
>> On 12/8/09 6:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>> I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
>>> will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding month
On Dec 10, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
> On 12/8/09 6:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
>> will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
>> further discussion which won't take things any further, I pr
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 05:41:01AM +, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> Floris Bruynooghe gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:18PM -0800, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> > > I don't know what notation this versioning schema was trying for,
> > > especially
> in regards to what the +'s m
On 12/8/09 6:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
further discussion which won't take things any further, I propose to
allow final comments from python-dev and then look
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 00:47, Paul Moore wrote:
>> I think so, but what you need is:
>>
>>> >>> throw_an_exception()
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>> ...
>>> ...DesiredException: ...
>
> No you don't. From the manual:
>
> """
> When the IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL doctest
22 matches
Mail list logo
