On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Ron Adam wrote:
> There are probably others I don't remember or know about.
"python -m site" is another handy one if you're trying to debug sys.path issues
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
___
On 10/12/2010 09:59 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
If that's the case what would I type in the command prompt in order to
install a module?
"C:\PythonXX\pysetup.exe"?
If so I would strongly miss old "setup.py install".
Anoth
On 21/10/2010 00:33, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
Hi
Sorry for the late response
On 8 October 2010 13:02, Fred Drake wrote:
I'm in favor of add a top-level setup module that can be invoked using
"python -m setup ...".
I'd say +1 for this option. It has the advantage that it's very clear
which
Hi
Sorry for the late response
On 8 October 2010 13:02, Fred Drake wrote:
> I'm in favor of add a top-level setup module that can be invoked using
> "python -m setup ...".
I'd say +1 for this option. It has the advantage that it's very clear
which python environment you're installing (or whate
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>
> No comment on the rest of your claim, but this is a silly argument.
> The standard says the same thing about at least fcntl.h, signal.h,
> pthread.h, and ucontext.h, which clearly a
On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> No comment on the rest of your claim, but this is a silly argument.
> The standard says the same thing about at least fcntl.h, signal.h,
> pthread.h, and ucontext.h, which clearly are useful.
It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek :). Perhaps I
On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:55 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
>> Not only is the performance usually worse than expected, the behavior of
>> aio_* functions require all kinds of subtle and mysterious coordination with
>> signal handling, which I'm not entirely sure Python would even be able to
On Oct 20, 2010, at 05:50 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>Wow, that's very interesting. Whilst a lot of people on this list will have
>an interest in knowing about this it still isn't the right list for
>discussing it. The python-porting list *is* an entirely appropriate list and
>it would be great to s
On 20/10/2010 17:43, David Malcolm wrote:
(my apologies, if necessary, for top-posting)
FWIW Neal asked about this on Fedora's development mailing list as well:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-October/144535.html
If I'm reading:
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/fpconst/
corre
(my apologies, if necessary, for top-posting)
FWIW Neal asked about this on Fedora's development mailing list as well:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-October/144535.html
If I'm reading:
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/fpconst/
correctly, that project hasn't had an upstream upda
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:06 PM, victor.stinner
wrote:
> Modified: python/branches/issue4388/Lib/test/test_cmd_line.py
> ==
> --- python/branches/issue4388/Lib/test/test_cmd_line.py (original)
> +++ python/branches/issue4
11 matches
Mail list logo
