On 3/29/2014 8:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The "future" project already contains a full backport of a true bytes
type, rather than relying on Python 2 str objects:
http://python-future.org/what_else.html#bytes
That project looks really nice!
It seems to me that the easiest way to make any for
On 30 March 2014 05:01, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Victor Stinner
> wrote:
>>
>> The PEP 461 looks good to me. It's a nice addition to Python 3.5 and
>> the PEP is well defined.
>
>
> +1
>
>>
>> I can help to implement it. Maybe, it would be nice to provide a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/29/2014 03:46 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I really don't think commercial profit as the motive for a request,
> or ability to pay, should be an important reason to *ignore* user
> wants.
We've already got corrosion on the terminals the lea
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Antoine Pitrou mailto:solip...@pitrou.net>> wrote:
I think we have reached a point where adding porting-related facilities
AFAIK, The only porting specific feature is %s as a synonym for %b. Not
pretty, but tolerable. Otherwise, I have the impression th
On 30 March 2014 07:01, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 11:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:53:45 -0700 "Gregory P. Smith" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand that sentiment but that is an unjustified fear. It is not a
>>> good reason not to do it. Projects are already tryi
On 03/29/2014 01:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 30 March 2014 03:05, Ethan Furman wrote:
This bit of code won't even finish compiling. I am not sure if my
understanding of references (and how these functions create/consume them) or
my understanding of when and where to call PyErr_Fetch|Restore
On 03/29/2014 11:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:53:45 -0700 "Gregory P. Smith" wrote:
I understand that sentiment but that is an unjustified fear. It is not a
good reason not to do it. Projects are already trying to port stuff today
and running into roadblocks when it comes
On 30 March 2014 03:05, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> This bit of code won't even finish compiling. I am not sure if my
> understanding of references (and how these functions create/consume them) or
> my understanding of when and where to call PyErr_Fetch|Restore or
> PyException_SetContext is at fault
On 3/29/2014 11:30 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 04:44:32 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/28/2014 5:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
[for Idle]
Why don't you use multiprocessing or concurrent.futures? They have
everything you need for continuous conversation between processes.
I h
On 3/29/2014 12:01 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
From a 2.x-3.x compatible code standpoint the above could exist but
the container class constructor would be a no-op on Python 2.
if sys.version_info[0] == 2:
BytesFormatter = str
else:
class BytesFormatter: ... def __mod__ ...
If done
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> The PEP 461 looks good to me. It's a nice addition to Python 3.5 and
> the PEP is well defined.
>
+1
> I can help to implement it. Maybe, it would be nice to provide an
> implementation as a third-party party module on PyPI for Python
> 2
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:53:45 -0700
"Gregory P. Smith" wrote:
>
> I understand that sentiment but that is an unjustified fear. It is not a
> good reason not to do it. Projects are already trying to port stuff today
> and running into roadblocks when it comes to ascii-compatible bytes
> formatting
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:47:59 +
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On Thu Mar 27 2014 at 2:42:40 PM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> >
> > > Much better, but I'm still not happy with including %s at all.
> Otherwise
> > > it's accept-worthy. (How's
I'm working on issue 1615 [1] and came up with this tidbit, which works [2],
but not well enough:
slot_tp_getattr_hook(PyObject *self, PyObject *name)
{
...
+PyObject *error_type, *error_value, *error_traceback;
...
+/* if an AttributeError is set, save it and call getattr; i
Thanks, it's fixed now.
Yury
On 2014-03-28, 10:29 AM, Andrew Svetlov wrote:
And probably the block should be deindented
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:12:02 +0100 (CET)
yury.selivanov wrote:
+.. classmethod:: Signature.from_callable(obj)
+
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:30:25 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 04:44:32 -0400
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > On 3/28/2014 5:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:58:25 -0400
> > > Terry Reedy wrote:
> >
> > >> However, the code below creates a subprocess for one c
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 04:44:32 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/28/2014 5:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:58:25 -0400
> > Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> >> However, the code below creates a subprocess for one command and one
> >> response, which can apparently be done now with subpr
On 3/28/2014 5:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:58:25 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
However, the code below creates a subprocess for one command and one
response, which can apparently be done now with subprocess.communicate.
What I and others need is a continuing (non-blocking)
On 3/28/2014 5:09 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
To be clear, the proposal for Idle would be to still use the RPC
protocol, but run it over a pipe instead of a socket, right?
The was and is the current proposal, assuming that it is the easiest
thing to do that would work. While responding to Vict
Tres Seaver writes:
> I'm mostly arguing the FLOSS project
You mean "a (mostly) volunteer-supported" FLOSS project, no?
> should feel free to ignore
Given the above qualification, you can put a period here, as far as
I'm concerned. My question is "what does *Python* *want* to ignore?",
not "
20 matches
Mail list logo
