On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 9:54 AM Inada Naoki wrote:
>
> We are close to 3.10 beta and it is not ideal timing for removing.
> So my proposal is:
>
> * Remove 'U' in fileinput, because it makes my task little simpler.
> * Remove 'U' in other places in Python 3.11, after 3.10 branch is
> created (and m
We are close to 3.10 beta and it is not ideal timing for removing.
So my proposal is:
* Remove 'U' in fileinput, because it makes my task little simpler.
* Remove 'U' in other places in Python 3.11, after 3.10 branch is
created (and master branch is renamed to main).
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 5:45 A
On 4/7/2021 12:32 PM, Barney Gale wrote:
It looks like you’ve incorporated several other changes into your commit
by mistake.
The PR definitely has too many changes unrelated to the issue. I
recognize a few of the changes as related to recent merges.
My guess that the the issue-43737 branch
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:01 AM Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> 07.04.21 19:13, Victor Stinner пише:
> > Hi Inada-san,
> >
> > I'm +0 on removing again the flag, but I would prefer to not endorse
> > the responsibility. I am already responsible for enough incompatible
> > changes in Python 3.10 :-D
> >
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:22 PM wrote:
> Hi developers,
>
> What should / shouldn't I do to attract any python developer response to
> issue tracker items? I am unsure of the proper procedure to follow so I am
> asking here first.
>
What you're doing here is probably your best bet. Unfortunatel
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:21 AM Federico Salerno
wrote:
> I don't have any decent proposal at the moment but I think coming up with
> a way to annotate side-effects of functions (including typeguard-ness)
> could come in handy. If we anticipate needing that, perhaps it would be
> beneficial to co
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 2:59 PM Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> This point reminded me again of this issue in the tracker ("Problems with
> recursive automatic exception chaining" from 2013):
> https://bugs.python.org/issue18861
> I'm not sure if it's exactly the same, but you can see that a couple of
> t
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:44:18 +0900
Inada Naoki wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:29 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 07. 04. 21 14:53, Inada Naoki wrote:
> > > 'U' mode was removed once and resurrected.
> > > https://bugs.python.org/issue39674
> > >
> > > As far as I can see, it is postponed t
07.04.21 19:13, Victor Stinner пише:
> Hi Inada-san,
>
> I'm +0 on removing again the flag, but I would prefer to not endorse
> the responsibility. I am already responsible for enough incompatible
> changes in Python 3.10 :-D
>
> Some context on this "U" open mode. The flag is accepted by many
>
Hi Inada-san,
I'm +0 on removing again the flag, but I would prefer to not endorse
the responsibility. I am already responsible for enough incompatible
changes in Python 3.10 :-D
Some context on this "U" open mode. The flag is accepted by many
functions opening files. It is deprecated (emit Depre
Hi Anthony,
It looks like you’ve incorporated several other changes into your commit by
mistake. The simplest thing to do might be to re-create your git branch and
PR from scratch.
If conflicting changes land while your PR is still open, you’ll need to do
something called a “rebase”. The git book
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:29 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 07. 04. 21 14:53, Inada Naoki wrote:
> > 'U' mode was removed once and resurrected.
> > https://bugs.python.org/issue39674
> >
> > As far as I can see, it is postponed to Python 3.10. Am I right?
> > Can we remove 'U' mode in Python 3.10?
On 07. 04. 21 14:53, Inada Naoki wrote:
'U' mode was removed once and resurrected.
https://bugs.python.org/issue39674
As far as I can see, it is postponed to Python 3.10. Am I right?
Can we remove 'U' mode in Python 3.10?
What is the benefit of doing it? Is the current compatibility layer to d
Paul Moore writes:
> I'm OK with these terms (although I don't actually think you *will*
> get sufficient consensus on them to make them unambiguous)
> once the implementation is merged into the CPython source, I think
> it should simply be referred to as "the implementation" and
> qualifi
'U' mode was removed once and resurrected.
https://bugs.python.org/issue39674
As far as I can see, it is postponed to Python 3.10. Am I right?
Can we remove 'U' mode in Python 3.10?
Regards,
--
Inada Naoki
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@py
All,
Can someone better than me (i.e anyone) help me resolve the issues with
Pull Request 25220.
I followed the dev guide, but I assume that between me taking my fork of
the cpython repository, and building my pull request, another pull
request was merged into master.
It also appears that
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 06:15, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Greg Ewing writes:
> > On 7/04/21 5:22 am, Brandt Bucher wrote:
> > > we might consider updating those templates if the term "Reference
> > > Implementation" implies a higher standard than "we've put in the
> > > work to make this hap
I don't have any decent proposal at the moment but I think coming up
with a way to annotate side-effects of functions (including
typeguard-ness) could come in handy. If we anticipate needing that,
perhaps it would be beneficial to come up with that feature before
implementing this PEP, lest we
18 matches
Mail list logo
