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
round
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,
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?
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 name
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 reas
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:43:12 +0200
vinay.sajip wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ababe8a73327
> changeset: 69575:ababe8a73327
> user:Vinay Sajip
> date:Tue Apr 26 18:43:05 2011 +0100
> summary:
> test_logging coverage improvements.
Apparently produces some failures:
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:
--> imp
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 impor
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 f
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 onl
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 th
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 wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/2f2c7eb27437
> changeset: 69556:2f2c7eb27437
> branch: 3.2
> parent: 69554:7
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
> date:Mon Apr 25 16:10:18 2011 -0400
> summary:
> #11901: add description of ho
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 20:43, cool-RR 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
> just does `y
14 matches
Mail list logo
