On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 06:57, Jesus Cea wrote:
> Would be enough to raise an "ERROR" at configure time if OSF test is
> positive?. To delete that intentional "ERROR" would be trivial.
Oh really? I have no clue of how to do that. Doesn't like like a good
deprecation to me. :)
Is printing a warning
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26/04/10 22:00, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Maybe we can drop OSF/1 safely supporting Tru64 yet, but we don't have
>> any buildbot running any of this systems...
>
> Dropping support is fine with me, in the long term. If PEP 11 is truly
> followed,
Am 02.05.2010 22:21, schrieb R. David Murray:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 00:44:22 +0200,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= wrote:
>> R. David Murray wrote:
>> > On Sat, 01 May 2010 16:18:19 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
>> >> On 1 May 2010 15:28, R. David Murray wrote:
>> >>> Unless I'm missin
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 02:00, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> [..]
> >>>
> >>> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by
> >>> majority vote amongst committers.
> >>
> >> Couldn't we just go with the FLUFL?
> >
> > I
> I wasn't asking for more precision than daily (I just hadn't seen it), but
> now that I think about it it would indeed be nice to know when the cron
> job starts, so that we know that if the checkin didn't happen before then,
> it won't show up in the online docs until the next day. I don't thin
On Sun, 02 May 2010 00:44:22 +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=
wrote:
> R. David Murray wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 May 2010 16:18:19 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> >> On 1 May 2010 15:28, R. David Murray wrote:
> >>> Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any docs there about the
> >>
On Sun, 02 May 2010 22:39:01 +1000, Yaniv Aknin wrote:
> >> Yes, in the last year in particular there has been some excellent effort
> >> of maintaining the issue tracker content. But the question still remains
> >> - who are we worried about offending?
>
> > The people who are potential new cont
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> Hello !
>
> Often I have the contents to be written in a file at a given path that
> I know as well. I recently tried to find a function in stdlib to do
> that and to my surprise this is what I found :
>
> - Such function exists
> - It's `dist
Hello !
Often I have the contents to be written in a file at a given path that
I know as well. I recently tried to find a function in stdlib to do
that and to my surprise this is what I found :
- Such function exists
- It's `distutils.file_util.write_file`
IMO the last place where people'd l
I was looking for a reference for the addition of multiple context
manager support to with statements in 3.1 and 2.7 and came up empty
(aside from the initial python-ideas thread [1] that I linked to from
PEP 377).
I was hoping to find something that clearly spelled out:
- the two major flaws in c
>> Yes, in the last year in particular there has been some excellent effort
>> of maintaining the issue tracker content. But the question still remains
>> - who are we worried about offending?
> The people who are potential new contributors but don't currently know
> anyone in the Python community
I've updated the PEP to include:
- completion callbacks (for interoperability with Twisted Deferreds)
- a pointer to the discussion on stdlig-sig
See:
http://svn.python.org/view/peps/trunk/pep-3148.txt?r1=78618&r2=80679
Rejected ideas:
- Having a registration system for executors
Not yet addres
12 matches
Mail list logo
