On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 20:43, cool-RR cool...@cool-rr.com wrote:
Hello,
Today I was trying to use `total_ordering` for the first time. I was
expecting that in order to implement e.g. `x y` it would do `not x y and
not x == y`, assuming that `__lt__` and `__eq__` are defined. But I see it
On 25.04.2011 22:14, r.david.murray wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/48758cd0769b
changeset: 69558:48758cd0769b
branch: 2.7
parent: 69545:e4fcfb8066ff
user:R David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
date:Mon Apr 25 16:10:18 2011 -0400
summary:
#11901: add
This seems to be changing what is tested -- are you saying that
filenames with an included directory name are not intended to be
supported?
On 4/25/11, antoine.pitrou python-check...@python.org wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/2f2c7eb27437
changeset: 69556:2f2c7eb27437
branch:
Le mardi 26 avril 2011 à 10:03 -0400, Jim Jewett a écrit :
This seems to be changing what is tested -- are you saying that
filenames with an included directory name are not intended to be
supported?
I don't know, but that's not the point of this very test.
(I also find it a bit surprising that
Hi,
If not, next developer tring to merge will find some other
unrelated code to merge, and she doesn't have the context knowledge to
know what to do :-).
Here’s a useful tip: instead of merging pulled changesets with your
branch, do the reverse. That is:
$ hg pull
$ hg heads . # get only
We all know that doing:
from pkg import *
is bad because it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace. So why not allow something
like:
import pkg.*
This would still be helpful for interactive sessions while keeping namespaces
around.
Sorry if this has been brought up before, my searching didn't
Brendan Moloney wrote:
We all know that doing:
from pkg import *
is bad because it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace. So why not allow something
like:
I don't quite know what you mean by obliterating the pkg namespace, but
if my guess is correct, you're wrong. One of the problems with
Brendan Moloney wrote:
We all know that doing:
-- from pkg import *
is bad because it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace.
The strongest reason for not doing this is that it pollutes the current
namespace, not that it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace.
So why not allow something like:
--
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:43:12 +0200
vinay.sajip python-check...@python.org wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ababe8a73327
changeset: 69575:ababe8a73327
user:Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk
date:Tue Apr 26 18:43:05 2011 +0100
summary:
test_logging coverage
Hi there,
I'm working on a project where I'm using Python's simple XML-RPC server [1]
on Python 3.x. I need to use it over TLS, which is not possible directly,
but it's pretty simple to implement extending few classes of the standard
library.
But what I would like to know, is if is there any
Ethan Furman wrote:
The strongest reason for not doing this is that it pollutes the current
namespace, not that it obliterates the 'pkg' namespace.
Sorry, I phrased that badly. When I said obliterates the 'pkg' namespace I
was referring to dumping the 'pkg' namespace into the current
Okay, I finally found a little time and got roundup installed and operating.
Only major complaint at this point is that the issue messages are
presented in top-post format (argh).
Does anyone know off the top of one's head what to change to put roundup
in bottom-post (chronological) format?
Le mardi 26 avril 2011 à 10:03 -0400, Jim Jewett a écrit :
This seems to be changing what is tested -- are you saying that
filenames with an included directory name are not intended to be
supported?
The test checks the Python parser, not the imp module :-)
I don't understand why: sometimes,
On 26/04/2011 22.32, Ethan Furman wrote:
Okay, I finally found a little time and got roundup installed and
operating.
Only major complaint at this point is that the issue messages are
presented in top-post format (argh).
Does anyone know off the top of one's head what to change to put
14 matches
Mail list logo
