On 26 November 2014 at 04:04, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Isaac Schwabacher
>> wrote:
>> > Yield can also raise StopIteration, if it's thrown in. The current
>> > interaction of generator.throw(StopIterat
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Greg wrote:
> The Abstract claims that the proposal will "unify the behaviour of
> list comprehensions and generator expressions", but it doesn't do
> that.
I don't know that it completely unifies the behaviours, but it does
merge them on the specific situation o
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Greg wrote:
> I'm not particularly opposed to PEP 479, but the Abstract and
> Rationale could do with considerable clarification.
I know.
> They currently
> appear to promise things that are in disagreement with what the PEP
> actually delivers.
>
> The Abstra
I'm not particularly opposed to PEP 479, but the Abstract and
Rationale could do with considerable clarification. They currently
appear to promise things that are in disagreement with what the PEP
actually delivers.
The Abstract claims that the proposal will "unify the behaviour of
list comprehen
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:21:08 -0500
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> >
> > You should be able to keep the e.reason test if you only catch SSLError.
>
> Unfortunately, test_robotparser seems to manage to raise a cert
> validation error without a reason.
Ahh... Perhaps it's urllib catching the SSLError
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014, at 19:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:06:06 +
> benjamin.peterson wrote:
>
> > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/e635c3ba75c8
> > changeset: 93591:e635c3ba75c8
> > branch: 3.4
> > user:Benjamin Peterson
> > date:Tue Nov 25 15:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:06:06 +
benjamin.peterson wrote:
> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/e635c3ba75c8
> changeset: 93591:e635c3ba75c8
> branch: 3.4
> user:Benjamin Peterson
> date:Tue Nov 25 15:43:58 2014 -0600
> summary:
> handle errors without a reason attribute
On 11/25/14, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > I wouldn't interpret it like that.
> >
> > Calling next() on an empty iterator raises StopIteration. That's not a
> > bug indicating a failure, it's the protocol working as expected. Your
> > response
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Isaac Schwabacher
wrote:
> On 11/25/14, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Chris Angelico [email protected]')" target="1">[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Isaac Schwabacher
> > > [email protected]
On 11/25/14, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Chris Angelico [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Isaac Schwabacher
> > > '[email protected]>> wrote:
> > > Yield can also raise StopIteration, if its thrown in. The current
> > > interac
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Isaac Schwabacher
> wrote:
> > Yield can also raise StopIteration, if it's thrown in. The current
> interaction of generator.throw(StopIteration) with yield from can't be
> emulated under the PEP's behavior
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Isaac Schwabacher
wrote:
> Yield can also raise StopIteration, if it's thrown in. The current
> interaction of generator.throw(StopIteration) with yield from can't be
> emulated under the PEP's behavior, though it's not clear that that's a
> problem.
>
Hrm. I h
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I wouldn't interpret it like that.
>
> Calling next() on an empty iterator raises StopIteration. That's not a
> bug indicating a failure, it's the protocol working as expected. Your
> response to that may be to catch the StopIteration and i
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:22:54AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> My point is that doing the same errant operation on a list or a dict
> will give different exceptions. In the same way, calling next() on an
> empty iterator will raise StopIteration normally, but might raise
> RuntimeError instead.
On Tue Nov 25 2014 at 1:17:49 AM Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 25 November 2014 at 13:18, Donald Stufft wrote:
> >
> > There’s also the social aspects of it as well which is a big concern too
> IMO. If you want to attract new contributors, not just keep the ones you
> already have sometimes that mean
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:17:06 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> The subsequent discussion has made me realise that dissatisfaction
> with the current state of the infrastructure amongst core developers
> is higher than I previously realised, so I've re-evaluated my own
> priorities, and will be spendi
16 matches
Mail list logo
