I think you need to go back farther in time. :-) In Python 2.0 the
call_trace function in ceval.c has a completely different signature
(but the docs are the same). I haven't checked all history but
somewhere between 2.0 and 2.3, SET_LINENO-less tracing was added, and
that's where the implementation
This week I learned something new about trace functions (how to write a
C trace function that survives a sys.settrace(sys.gettrace())
round-trip), and while writing up what I learned, I was surprised to
discover that trace functions don't behave the way I thought, or the way
the docs say they b
Hi,
Le 29/04/2011 18:09, Vinay Sajip a écrit :
[Georg]
BTW, didn't we agree not to put "pragma" comments into the stdlib
code?
I'd be grateful for a link to the prior discussion - it must have
passed me by
originally, and I searched python-dev on gmane but couldn't find any
threads
about thi
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:37 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
>
> The hardest part is debugging the TAL when you make a mistake, but
> even that isn't a whole lot worse than any other templating language.
How much in % is it worse than Django templating language?
--
anatoly t.
_
[Greg Ewing]
>> Taking a step back from all this, why does Python allow
>> NaNs to arise from computations *at all*?
[Mark Dickinson]
> History, I think. There's a c.l.p. message from Tim Peters somewhere
> saying something along the lines that he'd love to make (e.g.,) 1e300
> * 1e300 raise an e
Le mercredi 27 avril 2011 à 20:18 -0400, Jim Jewett a écrit :
> Would it be a problem to make them available a no-ops?
>
> On 4/26/11, victor.stinner wrote:
> > http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/75503c26a17f
> > changeset: 69584:75503c26a17f
> > user:Victor Stinner
> > date:Tue
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:02:33 +0100
Mark Dickinson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Greg Ewing
> wrote:
> > Taking a step back from all this, why does Python allow
> > NaNs to arise from computations *at all*?
>
> History, I think. There's a c.l.p. message from Tim Peters somewhere
> s
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Taking a step back from all this, why does Python allow
> NaNs to arise from computations *at all*?
History, I think. There's a c.l.p. message from Tim Peters somewhere
saying something along the lines that he'd love to make (e.g.,) 1e300
* 1e