On 3/12/2011 10:52 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/12/2011 7:21 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
The safest such character is \0,\
Works fine in Python.
unless you are coding in C,
Then \01 is next best.
I wouldn't have called you on this, except that it really is important
not to give people th
> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis writes:
Martin> Am 12.03.11 22:36, schrieb s...@pobox.com:
Martin> I don't think any of the regular core committers got any such
Martin> explicit veto powers on any code...
>>
>> "Veto powers" is your term, not mine. I suggested that Raymond'
On 3/12/2011 7:21 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
(Ok, I assumed that the 'word' field does not include any of
!"#$%&'()*+. If that is not true, replace comma with space or even a
control char such as '\a' which even precedes \t and \n.)
OK, I agree the above was your worst assumption, although you nee
Am 12.03.11 22:36, schrieb s...@pobox.com:
Martin> I don't think any of the regular core committers got any such
Martin> explicit veto powers on any code...
"Veto powers" is your term, not mine. I suggested that Raymond's opinion
should be accorded extra weight. This isn't the UN S
Martin> I don't think any of the regular core committers got any such
Martin> explicit veto powers on any code...
"Veto powers" is your term, not mine. I suggested that Raymond's opinion
should be accorded extra weight. This isn't the UN Security Council.
Skip
__
On 3/12/2011 8:47 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/12/2011 2:09 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I believe that if the integer field were padded with leading blanks as
needed so that all are the same length, then no key would be needed.
Did you mean that "if the integer field were" converted to string an
On Mar 12, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I was just reminded that in Python 3, list.sort() and sorted() no
> longer support the cmp (comparator) function argument. The reason is
> that the key function argument is always better. But now I have a
> nagging doubt about this:
>
> I re
[steve@sylar ~]$ python2.7 -m timeit -s "L = [(1,2), (3,4), (0,5),
(9,100), (3,7), (2,8)]" "sorted(L, lambda (p,q),(r,s): cmp(p*s, q*r))"
1 loops, best of 3: 25.1 usec per loop
[steve@sylar ~]$ python2.7 -m timeit -s "L = [(1,2), (3,4), (0,5),
(9,100), (3,7), (2,8)]" -s "from fractions import
On 3/12/2011 8:23 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
So am I. It seems to result from the hisorical mess
of distinguishing between numeric and sequence operations
at the C level but not the Python level. I think CPython
should be moving in the direction of eliminating that
distinctio
On 3/12/2011 8:28 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
Consider sorting a list of pairs representing fractions. This can be
done easily in Python 2.x with the comparison function lambda
(p,q),(r,s): cmp(p*s, q*r). In Python 2.6, this is about 40 times
faster than using fractions.
I believe the tracker sent an error message to python-dev as a
result of a failed hook execution. If someone with the
power would release that message so we can see what the error
was, I'd appreciate it :)
--David
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@
On 3/12/2011 2:09 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I believe that if the integer field were padded with leading blanks as
needed so that all are the same length, then no key would be needed.
Did you mean that "if the integer field were" converted to string and
"padded with leading blanks..."?
Otherwi
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
Consider sorting a list of pairs representing fractions. This can be
done easily in Python 2.x with the comparison function lambda
(p,q),(r,s): cmp(p*s, q*r). In Python 2.6, this is about 40 times
faster than using fractions.Fraction as a key function.
[steve@sylar ~]
Thomas Wouters wrote:
I would much rather loudly warn people to fix their code, instead of forcing
other implementations (and, more importantly to me personally, future
CPython changes :) to deal with the distinction forever. But if we declare a
wrapper to be the right way to deal with this, let
Greg Ewing wrote:
> So am I. It seems to result from the hisorical mess
> of distinguishing between numeric and sequence operations
> at the C level but not the Python level. I think CPython
> should be moving in the direction of eliminating that
> distinction, not expecting all other Python imple
On 3/12/2011 5:09 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
They should be able to use a slotted cmp_to_key style class:
http://docs.python.org/howto/sorting.html
That will allocate 1 Python object with
Maybe, but we have historically tended to give some extra weight to the
primary author of at least modules and packages. If someone wanted to make
a significant change to xml.etree, I think we would give reasonably large
weight to Fredrik Lundh's opinion on the change. If the peephole optimizer
Raymond> The social question: if the person who designed, implemented,
Raymond> and maintained the optimizer recommends against a patch and
Raymond> another committer just checks it in anyway, do we care?
Guido> - you're dangerously close here to putting your ego ahead of
Gui
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 12:49 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Thomas Wouters wrote:
>
> > 2. Make CFunctions turn into methods in CPython (after a period of
> > warning about the impending change, obviously.) The actual *usecase* for
> > this is hard to envision
>
> While not necessary for the case b
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:41 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 12.03.11 18:00, schrieb Glenn Linderman:
>>
>> On 3/12/2011 1:55 PM, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>> Consider sorting a list of pairs representing fractions. This can be
>>> done easily in Python 2.x with the comparison function lam
On 03/12/2011 05:13 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/12/2011 10:42 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
I might convert it directly into a Q&A blog post.
I'd like to see that, or a summary, posted here. As a Perl-to-Python
convertee, I'm curious about the problematic semantic differences.
The short summ
Am 12.03.11 18:00, schrieb Glenn Linderman:
On 3/12/2011 1:55 PM, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
Consider sorting a list of pairs representing fractions. This can be
done easily in Python 2.x with the comparison function lambda
(p,q),(r,s): cmp(p*s, q*r). In Python 2.6, this is about 40 times
faster
Nick Coghlan wrote:
I'm actually tempted to call the current CPython semantics flatout
*wrong*.
So am I. It seems to result from the hisorical mess
of distinguishing between numeric and sequence operations
at the C level but not the Python level. I think CPython
should be moving in the directi
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On 3/12/2011 3:43 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> I posted my rough notes and additional write-ups for Wednesday's VM
> summit and Thursday's language summit:
>
> http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-rough-notes.html
>
> 2
In article <1299940862.1632.7.camel@hobo>,
Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> I have been offered commit rights for Python after making a few patches
> on subprocess and the os module.
>
> Antoine suggested that I should introduce myself on the python-dev list
> so here we go:
>
> I am a student from Sout
>> You can’t combine the -r option with other options. (Yes, it’s a known
>> bug.)
> Are you sure? It just worked here: [...]
> (perhaps you're thinking of -R instead?)
Exactly.
>> On an unrelated note, you can use “-r .” to tell Mercurial to find the
>> branch name from the working directory in
On 3/12/2011 3:43 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I posted my rough notes and additional write-ups for Wednesday's VM
summit and Thursday's language summit:
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-rough-notes.html
2.7 to 3.2
- treat PyPy Python 3 dialect like a major Python libra
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 17:08, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> IIUC Thomas found that this breaks some current use of staticmethod.
>>
>
> I*I*UC, it wasn't making it callable that was the problem,
> it was changing the behaviour so that the staticmethod
> wrapper returns itself i
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:43:52 +0100
Éric Araujo wrote:
> > hg revert -ar default
>
> You can’t combine the -r option with other options. (Yes, it’s a known
> bug.)
Are you sure? It just worked here:
$ hg rev -ar default
reverting README
(perhaps you're thinking of -R instead?)
> On an unrelat
On 3/12/2011 1:55 PM, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
Consider sorting a list of pairs representing fractions. This can be
done easily in Python 2.x with the comparison function lambda
(p,q),(r,s): cmp(p*s, q*r). In Python 2.6, this is about 40 times
faster than using fractions.Fraction as a key functio
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>> hg revert -ar default
>
> You can’t combine the -r option with other options. (Yes, it’s a known bug.)
It seems to work for me (Mercurial 1.6.3 on Ubuntu). But I suppose it
wouldn't hurt
to split the options up.
Regards,
Nadeem
___
But in Python 3 this solution is no longer available. How bad is that?
I'm not sure. But I'd like to at least get the issue out in the open.
Rather than reintroducing cmp=, I'd add a cached=True parameter.
If this is set to False, the key results wouldn't be put into a
list, but recreated every
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 5:41 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Why not? IIUC, the current key function creates three objects: the tuple,
> the short string, and the int. With the class
Yeah, I misread the example. Using cmp_to_key would indeed save quite
a lot of memory in this case.
Cheers,
Nick.
> hg revert -ar default
You can’t combine the -r option with other options. (Yes, it’s a known
bug.)
On an unrelated note, you can use “-r .” to tell Mercurial to find the
branch name from the working directory instead of having to remember and
retype it.
Regards
___
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I was just reminded that in Python 3, list.sort() and sorted() no
> longer support the cmp (comparator) function argument. The reason is
> that the key function argument is always better. But now I have a
> nagging doubt about this:
>
> I recently advised a Googler who w
2011/3/12 Maciej Fijalkowski :
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:14 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-rough-notes.html
>>>
>>> http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-somewhat-coherent.html
>>
>> Wrt. the remark that other
Am 12.03.11 16:58, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
They should be able to use a slotted cmp_to_key style class:
http://docs.python.org/howto/sorting.html
That will allocate 1 Python object with no dict per key, but that
might not be good enough.
Tu
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:24:07 +0200
Nadeem Vawda wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:29 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > Isn't that command correct only if you are merging into default?
> > ISTM that it should be "hg revert -ar ".
>
> In general, yes. However, the existing text refers specifically
Can sort have an option (and/or try to figure it itself) to calculate
key for every comparison instead of caching them? This will have the
same memory requirements as with cmp, but doesn't require rewriting
code if you decide to trade speed for memory. Will this be much slower
than with cmp?
If go
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:29 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Isn't that command correct only if you are merging into default?
> ISTM that it should be "hg revert -ar ".
In general, yes. However, the existing text refers specifically to the
case of merging 3.2
into default, so I was trying to be co
On 3/12/2011 10:42 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
I might convert it directly into a Q&A blog post.
I'd like to see that, or a summary, posted here. As a Perl-to-Python
convertee, I'm curious about the problematic semantic differences.
___
Python-Dev mai
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Reid Kleckner
> wrote:
>> They should be able to use a slotted cmp_to_key style class:
>> http://docs.python.org/howto/sorting.html
>>
>> That will allocate 1 Python object with no dict per key, but that
>> m
On 3/12/2011 3:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I was just reminded that in Python 3, list.sort() and sorted() no
longer support the cmp (comparator) function argument. The reason is
that the key function argument is always better. But now I have a
nagging doubt about this:
I recently advised a Go
Guido van Rossum wrote:
IIUC Thomas found that this breaks some current use of staticmethod.
I*I*UC, it wasn't making it callable that was the problem,
it was changing the behaviour so that the staticmethod
wrapper returns itself instead of the underlying object
when accessed as a descriptor.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
> They should be able to use a slotted cmp_to_key style class:
> http://docs.python.org/howto/sorting.html
>
> That will allocate 1 Python object with no dict per key, but that
> might not be good enough.
Tuples are already slotted, so that is
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I was just reminded that in Python 3, list.sort() and sorted() no
> longer support the cmp (comparator) function argument. The reason is
> that the key function argument is always better. But now I have a
> nagging doubt about this:
>
> I
They should be able to use a slotted cmp_to_key style class:
http://docs.python.org/howto/sorting.html
That will allocate 1 Python object with no dict per key, but that
might not be good enough.
Reid
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I was just reminded that in Python 3
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:08:26 -0500
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> I would like to withdraw my suggestion for the recursive constant folding
> patch to be reverted. I value social harmony much more than a decision about
> whether a particular patch is a good idea. I apologize to anyone who is
> up
On 3/12/2011 8:33 AM, Laura Creighton wrote:
The thread with the whole gory details begins here:
http://codespeak.net/pipermail/pypy-dev/2011q1/006958.html
The second, multiplication issue does appears to be the same issue.
Augmenting my previous test:
class C(object):
def __iter__(self):
Hello,
> Finally: There appears to be some disagreement on who said what, in
> particular Raymond claims that he told Antoine not to commit whereas
> Antoine claims he did not hear this feedback. I'm guessing it happened
> in IRC (#python-dev), which is intentionally not logged anywhere.
Raymond
On 3/12/2011 3:04 PM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
It should be fixed, yes, but breaking existing code is going to piss off
a lot of people (like me) who already have enough worries when upgrading
Python. It is apparent that there *is* code out there that relies on
this behaviour, we shouldn't break it
I was just reminded that in Python 3, list.sort() and sorted() no
longer support the cmp (comparator) function argument. The reason is
that the key function argument is always better. But now I have a
nagging doubt about this:
I recently advised a Googler who was sorting a large dataset and
runnin
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 14:52, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/12/2011 8:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> (obviously, history now means that changing our behaviour would
>
> require a deprecation period)
>>
>
> I disagree. Behavior that contradicts intent and doc is a bug and should be
> fixed.
It sho
On 3/12/2011 8:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Laura Creighton wrote:
For those of you not at the Language Summit at PyCON the day before yesterday,
there was talk of identifying non-portable behaviour, such as relying on
CPython's reference counting garbage collecto
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
> There are separate social, strategic, and tactical questions.
>
> The social question: if the person who designed, implemented, and maintained
> the optimizer recommends against a patch and another committer just checks it
> in anyway
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Yeah, indeed, on everything you said. The code dispatching based on
> internal slots is horribly ad-hoc and likely wrong in subtle ways. Has
> any of this improved in Python 3?
Not that I know of - I was definitely able to replicate the w
At 08:25 AM 3/12/2011 -0500, Eugene Toder wrote:
Right, I'm not suggesting to remove all blocks, only SETUP_LOOP
blocks. Do you see the problem in that case?
I think you guys are forgetting about FOR_ITER, listcomps, and the like.
That is, IIRC, the reason loops use the block stack is because
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:14 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-rough-notes.html
>>
>> http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-somewhat-coherent.html
>
> Wrt. the remark that other implementations should be referenced mo
On 3/12/2011 9:41 AM, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
Hi,
I have been offered commit rights for Python after making a few patches
on subprocess and the os module.
Antoine suggested that I should introduce myself on the python-dev list
so here we go:
I am a student from South Africa and decided to do som
Welcome Ross! Glad you like the new dev guide. (Brett and the
community should be proud of their recent work on that.) Remember,
there are no stupid questions. And while occasionally it may appear as
if someone tries to bite your head off, our bite is not as bad as our
bark.
--Guido
On Sat, Mar 1
On 03/12/2011 11:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
About this bit from the VM meeting notes:
- original Python-on-Parrot ran into problems due to semantic
mismatches between Perl 6 and Python - reached the limits of the
degree of difference the Perl 6 toolchain was willing to tolerate)
Would you
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Laura Creighton wrote:
>> For those of you not at the Language Summit at PyCON the day before
>> yesterday,
>> there was talk of identifying non-portable behaviour, such as relying on
>> CPython's reference c
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-rough-notes.html
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-somewhat-coherent.html
Wrt. the remark that other implementations should be referenced more
prominently: I added them to
http://www.python.org/download/
Rega
I would like to withdraw my suggestion for the recursive constant folding patch
to be reverted. I value social harmony much more than a decision about whether
a particular patch is a good idea. I apologize to anyone who is upset over the
discussion.
Raymond
__
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I posted my rough notes and additional write-ups for Wednesday's VM
>> summit and Thursday's language summit:
>
> Thanks for doing that!
>
> About this bit from the VM meeting notes:
> - original Python-on-Parrot ran into problems du
Am 12.03.2011 16:13, schrieb Lukas Lueg:
> i've a storage engine that stores a lot of files (e.g. > 10.000) in
> one path. Running the code under cProfile, I found that with a total
> CPU-time of 1,118 seconds, 121 seconds are spent in 27.013 calls to
> open(). The number of calls is not the proble
On 03/12/2011 10:55 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
I have a deprecation warning that I need to make an error in 3.4.
A neat trick to remember to do those changes is using a test that fails
if something does not raise a DeprecationWarning if sys.version_info[:2]
== (3, 3), or an error if sys.version_inf
Hi,
> I posted my rough notes and additional write-ups for Wednesday's VM
> summit and Thursday's language summit:
Thanks for doing that!
About this bit from the VM meeting notes:
- original Python-on-Parrot ran into problems due to semantic
mismatches between Perl 6 and Python - reached the
There are separate social, strategic, and tactical questions.
The social question: if the person who designed, implemented, and maintained
the optimizer recommends against a patch and another committer just checks it
in anyway, do we care? I've taken responsibility for this code and have
trea
Hi
What OS and what file system you are using? Many file systems (e,g.
ext2/3fs) handle large directories very poorly.
A quick way to check if this has anything to do with Python is writing
a small C program that opens these files and time it.
Eugene
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Lukas Lueg
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:55:30 +0100
Éric Araujo wrote:
> > I have a deprecation warning that I need to make an error in 3.4.
>
> A neat trick to remember to do those changes is using a test that fails
> if something does not raise a DeprecationWarning if sys.version_info[:2]
> == (3, 3), or an err
Hi,
i've a storage engine that stores a lot of files (e.g. > 10.000) in
one path. Running the code under cProfile, I found that with a total
CPU-time of 1,118 seconds, 121 seconds are spent in 27.013 calls to
open(). The number of calls is not the problem; however I find it
*very* discomforting th
> I have a deprecation warning that I need to make an error in 3.4.
A neat trick to remember to do those changes is using a test that fails
if something does not raise a DeprecationWarning if sys.version_info[:2]
== (3, 3), or an error if sys.version_info[:3] == (3, 4). You write
those tests once
Am 12.03.11 09:26, schrieb Eric Smith:
Could someone with the right access add a "Python 3.4" version to the
tracker?
Done.
I'd also like to make it a release blocker in 3.4 so I don't forget
about it. If I do that, will it screw up any release workflow?
I don't think so. As release manager
Hi,
I have been offered commit rights for Python after making a few patches
on subprocess and the os module.
Antoine suggested that I should introduce myself on the python-dev list
so here we go:
I am a student from South Africa and decided to do some work on Python
in my spare time. I think I c
Could someone with the right access add a "Python 3.4" version to the
tracker? I have a deprecation warning that I need to make an error in 3.4.
I'd also like to make it a release blocker in 3.4 so I don't forget
about it. If I do that, will it screw up any release workflow?
Thanks.
_
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Laura Creighton wrote:
> For those of you not at the Language Summit at PyCON the day before yesterday,
> there was talk of identifying non-portable behaviour, such as relying on
> CPython's reference counting garbage collector to close files for you as
> soon as t
For those of you not at the Language Summit at PyCON the day before yesterday,
there was talk of identifying non-portable behaviour, such as relying on
CPython's reference counting garbage collector to close files for you as
soon as they become unreachable. And then warning about them.
We have a
> There are also "with" blocks :-) (which use separate opcodes, although
> they are similar in principle to try/finally blocks)
IIUC they use separate opcode, but the same block type (SETUP_FINALLY).
> There may be complications with nested try/finally blocks. You either
> need to generate separa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
...
> I have always felt uncomfortable with *any* kind of optimization --
> whether AST-based or bytecode-based. I feel the cost in code
> complexity is pretty high and in most cases the optimization is not
> worth the effort. Also I don't see the po
I posted my rough notes and additional write-ups for Wednesday's VM
summit and Thursday's language summit:
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-rough-notes.html
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-somewhat-coherent.html
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
On Mar 11, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 11 March 2011 23:24, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> I'm interested in the task and I guess I'll follow-up with Doug Hellman. I
>>> don't follow -ideas close enough to summarize it, but I'd contribute to a
>>> -dev blog.
>>
>> Awesome! (And we don
Am 12.03.11 04:03, schrieb Nadeem Vawda:
Hmm... it seems that the given instructions don't actually work. "hg
revert -a" fails,
saying that a specific revision needs to be provided. The command should be
"hg revert -ar default".
Isn't that command correct only if you are merging into default?
I
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> I can also see the case for ripping out the peepholer entirely. But
> reverting Antoine's patch seems like a step backwards.
+1 to what Mark says here.
If the day comes when the peepholer can be ripped out in favour of AST
based optimisat
Hello,
> Am I missing something? Does SETUP_LOOP serve any other purpose?
Not to my knowledge.
> Similarly, it looks like BREAK_LOOP and CONTINUE_LOOP are just jumps
> that respect try/finally blocks (i.e. jumping out of try executes
> finally). Is there more semantics to them than this?
There
FWIW, I'm -1 on backing out Antoine's patch. In addition to fixing
the minor optimization regression, it makes the peepholer
significantly more consistent in what it can and can't fold. One of
the first times that I delved into the peepholer code was to try to
understand why expressions like: 2
Hello,
> I recall several occasions where the peephole optimizer was subtly
> buggy -- on one occasion the bug remained undetected for at least a
> whole release cycle. (Sorry, I can't recall the details.) In fact, the
> bug reported in http://bugs.python.org/issue11244 is another example
> of ho
Hmm... it seems that the given instructions don't actually work. "hg
revert -a" fails,
saying that a specific revision needs to be provided. The command should be
"hg revert -ar default".
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.pytho
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> The devguide's recommendation is to "forward-port" changes withing a major
> release line, i.e. if I need something in all 3.[123], then start with 3.1
> and forward-port (by "hg merge ") to 3.2 and then 3.3
>
> Just to clarify - does this me
89 matches
Mail list logo
