On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> This is simple to try and see what happens.
> [X] or [XI] for X(cross) implementation.
To allow easier transition to a separate list (if that seems necessary
at a later date), my preferred colour for the bikeshed is
[compatibility-sig].
I thi
On 6/11/2012 11:13 PM, fwierzbi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
2. As 1, but we adopt a subject line convention to make it easier to
filter out general python-dev traffic for those that are just
interested in cross-vm questions
(2) and (3) work for
Guido van Rossum writes:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
> > Unambiguous storage of absolute time can be achieved with POSIX
> > timestamps, but that is certainly not the only nor best way to do
> > it.
> >
> > For example, RFC 5322 specifies a standard serialisation for
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Alexander Belopolsky writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> > Maybe the problem here is the *input*? It should be a POSIX
>> > timestamp, not a datetime object.
>>
>> No. "Seconds since epoch" or "POSIX" times
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Albert Zeyer wrote:
> I also searched a bit around and I didn't directly found any easier
> way to do this. Only a post from 2009
> (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/cplusplus-sig/2009-January/014178.html)
> which seems like a much more ugly hack.
Right, it isn't
On Monday, June 11, 2012, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Brett Cannon writes:
>
> > But we already have the various SIGs carry out discussions outside of
> > python-dev and just bring forward their results to python-dev when they
> are
> > ready. Why would this list be any different?
>
> (1) Beca
Hi,
I just created some code to support built-in sub modules.
The naive way I tried first was just to add {"Mod.Sub1.Sub2",
init_modsub1sub2} to _PyImport_Inittab. This didn't worked. Maybe it
would be a nice addition so that this works.
Mod itself, in my case, was a package directory with pure
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 1. Asking on python-dev is considered adequate. If an implementation
> wants to be consulted on changes, one or more of their developers
> *must* follow python-dev sufficiently closely that they don't miss
> cross-VM compatibility questions.
Brett Cannon writes:
> But we already have the various SIGs carry out discussions outside of
> python-dev and just bring forward their results to python-dev when they are
> ready. Why would this list be any different?
(1) Because AIUI the main problem this list is supposed to solve is
cont
Alexander Belopolsky writes:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Maybe the problem here is the *input*? It should be a POSIX
> > timestamp, not a datetime object.
>
> No. "Seconds since epoch" or "POSIX" timestamp is a foreign data type
> to the datetime module.
On th
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 04:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> >1. Asking on python-dev is considered adequate. If an implementation
> >wants to be consulted on changes, one or more of their developers
> >*must* follow python-dev sufficiently closely
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Eric Snow
>> wrote:
>> > Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
>> > would have been the most effective by far. Of course, th
On Jun 11, 2012, at 04:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>1. Asking on python-dev is considered adequate. If an implementation
>wants to be consulted on changes, one or more of their developers
>*must* follow python-dev sufficiently closely that they don't miss
>cross-VM compatibility questions.
That's
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
> > Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
> > would have been the most effective by far. Of course, the key thing
> > is how closely the various implementors
Let's agree to disagree. I don't have the time to argue any more but
you haven't convinced me.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> ..
>> Maybe the problem here is the *input*? It should be a POSIX timestamp,
>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
..
> Maybe the problem here is the *input*? It should be a POSIX timestamp,
> not a datetime object.
>
No. "Seconds since epoch" or "POSIX" timestamp is a foreign data type
to the datetime module. An aware datetime object with
tzinfo=time
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:01:57 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
> >> wrote:
> > ..
> >> t = mktime((2010, 11, 7
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
>> wrote:
> ..
>> t = mktime((2010, 11, 7, 1, 0, 0, -1, -1, 0))
>> for i in range(5):
>>> ... print(strftime
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
> Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
> would have been the most effective by far. Of course, the key thing
> is how closely the various implementors would follow the new list.
> Only they could say, though Frank W
Eric Snow gmail.com> writes:
>
> Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
> would have been the most effective by far. Of course, the key thing
> is how closely the various implementors would follow the new list.
> Only they could say, though Frank Wierzbicki seemed
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> But what guarantee do you have that (a) the right people sign up for
>> the new list, and (b) topics are correctly brought up there instead of
>> on python-dev? I agree that python
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
> wrote:
..
> t = mktime((2010, 11, 7, 1, 0, 0, -1, -1, 0))
> for i in range(5):
>> ... print(strftime("%T%z", localtime(t + i - 2)))
>> ...
>> 01:59:58-0400
>> 01:59:59-040
On Friday, June 8, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:06 AM, (mailto:mar...@v.loewis.de)> wrote:
>
> > I hereby predict that Microsoft will revert this decision, and that VS
> > Express
> > 11 will be able to build CPython.
>
>
>
> And your prediction was right
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But what guarantee do you have that (a) the right people sign up for
> the new list, and (b) topics are correctly brought up there instead of
> on python-dev? I agree that python-dev is turning into a firehose, but
> I am reluctant to cre
24 matches
Mail list logo
