In article <62321d60-1197-47a5-b455-6e5200dd5...@stufft.io>,
Donald Stufft wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2014, at 12:58 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On 7 Jul 2014 10:47, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
> > > It would still be nice to know who "the appropriate persons" are. Too
> > > much of our infrastructure s
On 07/11/2014 07:04 AM, Andreas Maier wrote:
Am 09.07.2014 03:48, schrieb Raymond Hettinger:
Personally, I see no need to make the same mistake by removing
the identity-implies-equality rule from the built-in containers.
There's no need to upset the apple cart for nearly zero benefit.
Contain
Am 08.07.2014 05:47, schrieb Ethan Furman:
On 07/07/2014 08:34 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Ethan Furman writes:
And what would be this 'sensible definition' [of value equality]?
I think that's the wrong question. I suppose Andreas's point is that
when the programmer doesn't provide a def
Am 11.07.2014 10:54, schrieb Ethan Furman:
On 07/11/2014 01:51 AM, Andreas Maier wrote:
I like the motivation provided by Benjamin and will work it into the
doc patch for issue #12067. The NaN special case
will also stay in.
Cool -- you should nosy myself, D'Aprano, and Benjamin (at least) on
Am 09.07.2014 03:48, schrieb Raymond Hettinger:
On Jul 7, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Andreas Maier wrote:
I do not really buy into the arguments that try to show how identity and value
are somehow the same. They are not, not even in Python.
The argument I can absolutely buy into is that the implemen
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2014-07-04 - 2014-07-11)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open4588 (-15)
closed 29141 (+55)
total 33729 (+40)
Open issues wit
Brett Cannon wrote:
> No, the PEPs were fine and were accepted properly. A huge portion of the open
> issues are from Robin Schreiber who as part of GSoC 2012 -- https://
> www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/details/google/gsoc2012/robin_hood/
> 5668600916475904 -- went through and updated the st
[replying to python-dev this time]
>> The "onerror" approach can also deal with readdir failing, which the
>> PEP currently glosses over.
>
>
> Do we want this, though? I can see an error handler for individual entries,
> but if one of the *dir commands fails that would seem to be fairly
> catas
