Should new enum types added recently to collect module constants be
documented at all? For example AddressFamily is absent in socket.__all__
[1].
[1] http://bugs.python.org/issue20689
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.pyt
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> Redirecting to python-ideas, so trimming less than I might.
reasonable enough -- you are introducing some more significant ideas for
changes.
I've said all I have to say about this -- I don't seem to see anything
encouraging form c
Hi,
I heard that PyPy sandbox cannot be used out of the box. You have to write
a policy to allow syscalls. The complexity is moved to this policy which is
very hard to write, especially if you only use whitelists.
Correct me if I'm wrong. To be honest, I never take a look at this sandbox.
Victor
On 8/13/2014 12:19 PM, matsjoyce wrote:
Unless you remove all the things labelled "keep away from children". I wrote
this sandbox to allow python to be used as a "mods"/"add-ons" language for a
game I'm writing, hence the perhaps too strict nature.
About the crashers: as this is for games, its "
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:08:51PM +0300, yoav glazner wrote:
[...]
> Just a thought, would it bit wierd that:
> with (a as b, c as d): "works"
> with (a, c): "boom"
> with(a as b, c): ?
If this proposal is accepted, there is no need for the "boom". The
syntax should allow:
# Without parens, lim
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 02:26:29AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Isaac Morland wrote:
While I would not claim a Python sandbox is utterly impossible, I'm
suspicious that the whole "consenting adults" approach in Pyth
On Aug 13, 2014 7:04 PM, "Akira Li" <4kir4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nick Coghlan writes:
>
> > On 12 August 2014 22:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> Compare the natural way of writing this:
> >>
> >> with open("spam") as spam, open("eggs", "w") as eggs,
frobulate("cheese") as cheese:
> >> # do
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> It's certainly not *fundamentally* impossible to sandbox Python.
>> However, the question becomes one of how much effort you're going to
>> go to and how much you're going to restrict the code.
>
> I believe that PyPy has an effective sand
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 02:26:29AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Isaac Morland wrote:
> > While I would not claim a Python sandbox is utterly impossible, I'm
> > suspicious that the whole "consenting adults" approach in Python is
> > incompatible with a sandbox.
On 12 Aug 2014, at 10:02, Armin Rigo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The core of the matter is that if we repeatedly __add__ strings from a
> long list, we get O(n**2) behavior. For one point of view, the
> reason is that the additions proceed in left-to-right order. Indeed,
> sum() could proceed in a m
Unless you remove all the things labelled "keep away from children". I
wrote this sandbox to allow python to be used as a "mods"/"add-ons"
language for a game I'm writing, hence the perhaps too strict nature.
About the crashers: as this is for games, its "fine" for the game to crash,
as long as th
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Isaac Morland wrote:
> While I would not claim a Python sandbox is utterly impossible, I'm
> suspicious that the whole "consenting adults" approach in Python is
> incompatible with a sandbox. The whole idea of a sandbox is to absolutely
> prevent people from doin
Unless you remove all the things labelled "keep away from children". I wrote
this sandbox to allow python to be used as a "mods"/"add-ons" language for a
game I'm writing, hence the perhaps too strict nature.
About the crashers: as this is for games, its "fine" for the game to crash,
as long as
Nick Coghlan writes:
> On 12 August 2014 22:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Compare the natural way of writing this:
>>
>> with open("spam") as spam, open("eggs", "w") as eggs, frobulate("cheese") as
>> cheese:
>> # do stuff with spam, eggs, cheese
>>
>> versus the dynamic way:
>>
>> with Exi
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Skip Montanaro wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:42 PM, matsjoyce wrote:
There maybe some holes in my approach, but I can't find them.
There's the rub. Given time, I suspect someone will discover a hole or two.
Schneier's Law:
Any person can invent a security
On 12 August 2014 22:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Compare the natural way of writing this:
>
> with open("spam") as spam, open("eggs", "w") as eggs, frobulate("cheese") as
> cheese:
> # do stuff with spam, eggs, cheese
>
> versus the dynamic way:
>
> with ExitStack() as stack:
> spam, egg
16 matches
Mail list logo
