On 04/02, Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> On 04/02, Alexander Walters wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2015 21:29, Ethan Furman wrote:
I just built the latest version of Python 2.7 on my development machine --
or so I thought. When I invoke it, I get
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 04/02, Alexander Walters wrote:
>> On 4/2/2015 21:29, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>>
>>> I just built the latest version of Python 2.7 on my development machine --
>>> or so I thought. When I invoke it, I get:
>>>
>>>Python 2.7.6+ (2.7:1beb3
On 04/02, Alexander Walters wrote:
> On 4/2/2015 21:29, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>
>> I just built the latest version of Python 2.7 on my development machine --
>> or so I thought. When I invoke it, I get:
>>
>>Python 2.7.6+ (2.7:1beb3e0507fa, Apr 2 2015, 17:57:53)
>>
>> Why am I not seeing 2.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 3 April 2015 at 08:24, Martin Teichmann wrote:
> However, I'm also now wondering if it may be possible to reach out to
> the pylint authors (similar to what Brett did for the "pylint --py3k"
> flag) and ask for a way to make it easy to regi
On 04/03, Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 04/03/2015 02:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> If I'm understanding PJE's main concern correctly it's that this
>> approach requires explicitly testing that the decorator has been
>> applied correctly in your automated tests every time you use it, as
>> otherwise ther
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 04/03/2015 02:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> If I'm understanding PJE's main concern correctly it's that this
>> approach requires explicitly testing that the decorator has been
>> applied correctly in your automated tests every time you us
On 04/03/2015 02:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
If I'm understanding PJE's main concern correctly it's that this
approach requires explicitly testing that the decorator has been
applied correctly in your automated tests every time you use it, as
otherwise there's a risk of a silent failure when you u
On Thursday, April 2, 2015, Ethan Furman wrote:
> I just built the latest version of Python 2.7 on my development machine --
> or so I thought. When I invoke it, I get:
>
> Python 2.7.6+ (2.7:1beb3e0507fa, Apr 2 2015, 17:57:53)
>
> Why am I not seeing 2.7.9?
>
https://hg.python.org/cpython/
Are you building from mercurial or a source tarball?
On 4/2/2015 21:29, Ethan Furman wrote:
I just built the latest version of Python 2.7 on my development machine -- or
so I thought. When I invoke it, I get:
Python 2.7.6+ (2.7:1beb3e0507fa, Apr 2 2015, 17:57:53)
Why am I not seeing 2.7
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Martin Teichmann
wrote:
> The whole point of PEP 487 was to reduce PEP 422 so much that
> it can be written in python and back-ported.
As I said earlier, it's a fine feature and should be in the stdlib for
Python 3. (But it should have a `noconflict` feature added
On 3 April 2015 at 08:24, Martin Teichmann wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>> > If the PEP 487 metaclass library,
>> > however, were to just port some bits of my code to Python 3 this could
>> > be a done deal already and available in *all* versions of Python 3,
>> > not just the next one.
>>
>> Just for
I just built the latest version of Python 2.7 on my development machine -- or
so I thought. When I invoke it, I get:
Python 2.7.6+ (2.7:1beb3e0507fa, Apr 2 2015, 17:57:53)
Why am I not seeing 2.7.9?
--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-De
Hi everyone,
> > If the PEP 487 metaclass library,
> > however, were to just port some bits of my code to Python 3 this could
> > be a done deal already and available in *all* versions of Python 3,
> > not just the next one.
>
> Just for the heck of it, here's an actual implementation and demo of
Hi everyone,
for those new to the discussion, I am the author of PEP 487,
which has been discussed here:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-February/032249.html
> The concern is twofold: it breaks proper information hiding/DRY, *and*
> it fails silently. It should not be necessa
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> If the PEP 487 metaclass library,
> however, were to just port some bits of my code to Python 3 this could
> be a done deal already and available in *all* versions of Python 3,
> not just the next one.
Just for the heck of it, here's an actual imple
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 2 April 2015 at 16:38, PJ Eby wrote:
>>
>> IOW, there's no need to modify the core just to have *that* feature,
>> since if you control the base class you can already do what PEP 487
>> does in essentially every version of Python, ever. If
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 06:46:11PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 2 April 2015 at 16:38, PJ Eby wrote:
> > IOW, there's no need to modify the core just to have *that* feature,
> > since if you control the base class you can already do what PEP 487
> > does in essentially every version of Python,
On 1 April 2015 at 17:32, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Currently, there is an IRC bot on #python-dev which notify when buildbot
> color changes. Or sometiles I chceck the huge waterfall page. By the way, it
> became difficult to browse this page because there are too many offline
> buildbots.
The cate
On 2 April 2015 at 16:38, PJ Eby wrote:
>
> IOW, there's no need to modify the core just to have *that* feature,
> since if you control the base class you can already do what PEP 487
> does in essentially every version of Python, ever. If that's all PEP
> 487 is going to do, it should just be a P
19 matches
Mail list logo
