On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 16:14, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 01.05.2011 22:51, schrieb Brian Curtin:
> > I'm currently writing a post about the process of removing OS/2 and VMS
> > support and thought about a discussion of Windows 2000 some time
> > back.
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyth
Am 29.04.2011 22:03, schrieb Michael Foord:
> I know that the svn repo is now for legacy purposes only, but I doubt it
> is intended that the online source browser should raise exceptions.
It's certainly not. However, I don't plan to do anything about it,
either (nor would I know that anybody else
I'd like to make a Python 2.6.7 release candidate this Friday, May 6, with a
final release scheduled for May 20. I've put these dates on the Python
Release Schedule calendar.
This will be a source-only security release. I see no release blockers for
Python 2.6, so if you know of anything that mu
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > (Please reply to me directly.)
>
> I did this time, but you should not expect that when posting to a public
> list.
Actually, this is not only appropriate on some lists, on some lists one is
actually strongly discouraged from doing anything
Am 01.05.2011 22:51, schrieb Brian Curtin:
> I'm currently writing a post about the process of removing OS/2 and VMS
> support and thought about a discussion of Windows 2000 some time
> back. http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-March/098074.html makes
> a proposal for beginning to walk
On 4/29/2011 10:13 PM, Adrian Johnston wrote:
This may seem like an odd question, but I’m intrigued by the idea of
using Python as a data definition language with “undo” support.
If I were to try and instrument the Python interpreter to be able to
step backwards, would that be an unduly difficul
2011/5/2 Georg Brandl :
> On 02.05.2011 18:06, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>> On 30.04.2011 16:53, anatoly techtonik wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:37 AM, R. David Murray
wrote:
>
> The hardest part is debugging the TAL whe
Sijin Joseph wrote:
> Hi - I am working on a patch where I have an argument that can either be a
> unicode string or binary data, I parse the argument using the
> PyArg_ParseTuple method using the s* format specification and get a
> Py_Buffer.
>
> I now need to convert this Py_Buffer object to a P
Hi - I am working on a patch where I have an argument that can either be a
unicode string or binary data, I parse the argument using the
PyArg_ParseTuple method using the s* format specification and get a
Py_Buffer.
I now need to convert this Py_Buffer object to a Py_Unicode and pass it into
a fun
This may seem like an odd question, but I’m intrigued by the idea of using
Python as a data definition language with “undo” support.
If I were to try and instrument the Python interpreter to be able to step
backwards, would that be an unduly difficult or inefficient thing to do?
(Please reply
On 02.05.2011 18:06, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> On 30.04.2011 16:53, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>> 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
e
2011/4/30 anatoly techtonik :
> 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
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:14 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> http://guide.python-distribute.org/quickstart.html proposes suffixing
> version of a module in repository with 'dev' in a way that after
> release of '1.0' version, the repository version is changed to
> '2.0dev'. This makes sense, but it
http://guide.python-distribute.org/quickstart.html proposes suffixing
version of a module in repository with 'dev' in a way that after
release of '1.0' version, the repository version is changed to
'2.0dev'. This makes sense, but it is not compatible with PEP 386,
which suggests using 2.0.devN, whe
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:06, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> > On 30.04.2011 16:53, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> >> 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
2011/5/2 anatoly techtonik :
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> On 30.04.2011 16:53, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>> 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
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> On 30.04.2011 16:53, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> 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 templa
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> sure the urllib tests already fire up a local server). Starting down
> the path of standardisation of that test functionality would be good.
I've made a start with test_logging.py by implementing some potential server
classes for use in tests: in the latest test
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
> On 2/05/2011 9:27 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Maybe the fact no one noticed the docs
>> were wrong proves that no one ever tried returning None from a local
>> trace function.
>
> Or if they did, they should have complained by now.
On 2/05/2011 9:27 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
...
Maybe the fact no one noticed the docs
were wrong proves that no one ever tried returning None from a local
trace function.
Or if they did, they should have complained by now. IMO, if the
behaviour regresses from how it is documented and how it
Indeed, the 2.0 code is very different, and got this case right.
I'm a little surprised no one is arguing that changing this code now
could break some applications. Maybe the fact no one noticed the docs
were wrong proves that no one ever tried returning None from a local
trace function.
--
Hi,
I introduced recently the signal.pthread_sigmask() function (issue #8407).
pthread_sigmask() (the C function) returns an error code using errno codes. I
choosed to raise a RuntimeError using this error code, but I am not sure that
RuntimeError is the best choice. It is more an OS error than
22 matches
Mail list logo
