On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Daniel (ajax) Diniz wrote:
http://bugs.python.org/issue809887 Improve pdb breakpoint feedback
Why this one?
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
[...]
nose itself is not a completely independent piece of work but "a discovery-based
unittest extension" (although a very big extension!). For that reason, Michael
Foord's suggestion to gradually modernize and improve the stdlib unittest sounds
reasona
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 22Jul2008 20:56, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Cameron Simpson wrote:
[...]
Leaving aside the 0.2 => 0 converstion, shouldn't read() raise an
exception if asked for < 1 bytes? Or is there a legitima
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Cameron Simpson wrote:
[...]
Leaving aside the 0.2 => 0 converstion, shouldn't read() raise an
exception if asked for < 1 bytes? Or is there a legitimate use for read(0)
with which I was not previously aware?
http://docs.python.org/lib/bltin-file-objects.html
read([size])
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Facundo Batista wrote:
[...]
Next week we'll have a Python Bug Weekend [3], it's a good moment to gain speed.
[...]
[3] http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonBugDay
That page says the next bug day will be on Sat, June 21st-22nd 2008, which
is in two weeks' time. Has that pla
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
- reorganizing the tests into separate directories
Why this one?
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.pytho
http://python.org/sf/2451
"""
The new timeout support in 2.6 makes use of new function
socket.create_connection(). socket.create_connection() provides no way
to disable timeouts, other than by relying on socket.getdefaulttimeout()
returning None. This is unfortunate, because it was the purpose o
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Mark Roberts wrote:
[...]
> If there's a widely recognized argument against this, a link will likely
> sate my curiosity.
Quoting from Martin v. Loewis earlier on the same day you posted:
"""
I think this specific approach will find strong resistance. It has been
implemented
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Scott Dial wrote:
[...]
> In retrospect, perhaps "{de|en}codestring" was a poor name choice.
> urllib2 should be calling b64encode directly.
>
> I have submitted a patch to the tracker: [ 1574068 ] urllib2 - Fix line
> breaks in authorization headers.
urllib should also be fixe
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 13:24, Michael Chermside wrote:
> > How about something like this:
> >
> > S.partition(sep) -> (head, sep, tail)
> > S.rpartition(sep) -> (tail, sep, rest)
>
> I think I prefer:
>
>S.partition(sep) -> (head, s
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
> I committed this fix as 51664 on the trunk (although the docstrings are still
> example free because doctest doesn't understand __future__ statements).
[...]
Assuming doctest doesn't try to parse the Python code when SKIP is
specified, I guess this
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> John J Lee wrote:
>>> And once the result has been promoted to unicode, __unicode__ is used
>>> directly:
>>>
>>>>>> print repr("%s%s" % (a(), a()))
>>> __str__
>>> acces
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The note (4) says that the result will be unicode, but it doesn't say how,
>> in this case, that comes about. This case is confusing because the docs
>> claim string formatting
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> John J Lee wrote:
>> Is this a bug?
>
> I don't believe so - the string formatting documentation states that the
> result will be unicode if either the format string is unicode or any of the
> objects passed to a %s format
Is this a bug?
# run with 2.4 and then with 2.5 (I'm running release25-maint:51410)
class a(object):
def __getattribute__(self, name):
print "accessing %r.%s" % (self, name)
return object.__getattribute__(self, name)
def __str__(self):
print "__str__"
Revision 50842 made a change to an undocumented interface of urllib2 that
I'm sure will break real code.
Patch 1542948 reverts the part of that commit that applied to urllib2, and
adds a one-line fix in its place that addresses the problem that 50842
fixed.
Details are on the patch tracker:
h
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, John J Lee wrote:
[...]
> If nobody has time to fix this, perhaps rev 47154 should be reverted?
I should have put it more strongly: I think it *should* in fact be
reverted if nobody has time to fix it before the release candidate / final
release of 2.5. The revision
Looks like revision 47154 introduced a regexp that hangs Python (Ctrl-C
won't kill the process, CPU usage sits near 100%) under some
circumstances. There's a test case here:
http://python.org/sf/1541697
The problem isn't seen if you read the whole file at once (or almost the
whole file at on
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Greg Ward wrote:
[...]
> Did you look at the crude attempt at testing for this bug that I hacked
> into test_httplib.py? I posted it to bug #1486335 here:
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/download.php?group_id=5470&atid=105470&file_id=186245&aid=1486335
>
> The idea is s
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
[...]
> It's actually a good preparation for Py3k where 1 == u'abc' will
> (likely) also raise an exception.
I though I'd heard (from Guido here or on the py3k list) that it was only
1 < u'abc' that would raise an exception, and that 1 == u'abc' would stil
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Greg Ward wrote:
[...]
> Where I'm getting hung up is how far to test this stuff.
Stop when you run out of time ;-)
> I have
> discovered other hypothetical cases of bad chunking that cause httplib
> to go into an infinite loop or block forever on socket.readline().
> Should
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
[...]
> Actually, I would see more reason to include JSON in the standard library,
> since it's at least something approaching an internet protocol these days.
+1
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@p
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Stefan Rank wrote:
> urllib.quote fails on unicode strings and in an unhelpful way::
[...]
> >>> urllib.quote(u'a\xf1a')
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "", line 1, in ?
> File "C:\Python24\lib\urllib.py", line 1117, in quote
> res = map(safe_map.
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> To fake things like this, socket.setdefaulttimeout() was added, though
> I don't know if it actually works. Have you tried that?
[...]
It works. I think there's some issue with SSL, though (can't seem to find
the issue now).
Of course, feeding thro
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
> I started to write a reply to this with some comments on the API (including
> the internal subclassing API), but ended up with so many different
> suggestions it was easier to just post a variant of the module. I called it
> "urischemes" and posted
[Not sure whether this kind of thing is best posted as tracker comments
(but then the tracker gets terribly long and is mailed out every time a
change happens) or posted here. Feel free to tell me I'm posting in the
wrong place...]
Some comments on this patch (a new module, submitted by Paul J
On Sun, 28 May 2006, Armin Rigo wrote:
[...]
> Now I'm stumbling upon this test for urllib2:
>
>>>> mgr = urllib2.HTTPPasswordMgr()
>>>> add = mgr.add_password
>>>> add("Some Realm", "http://example.com/";, "joe", "password")
>>>> add("Some Realm", "http://example.com/ni";, "ni", "n
On Sat, 27 May 2006, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
[...]
Just end user experience's two cents here
(btw, this line is correct at English level?)
[...]
Wouldn't it be still be conventional to have an article somewhere?
e.g. " Just /some/ end user's two cents here"
Yes, but "one" (or maybe "an") ra
When opening patches on the SF tracker for bugs that affect Python 2.5,
but may be candidates for backporting (to 2.4 ATM), should I leave "Group"
as "None", or set it to "Python 2.5" to indicate it affects 2.5?
If it's known to be a candidate for backporting, should I set it to
"Python 2.4" to
Is another bug day planned in the next week or two?
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Paul Moore wrote:
On 4/24/06, Neil Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin v. Löwis:
Apparently, the status of this changed right now: it seems that
the 2003 compiler is not available anymore; the page now says
that it was replaced with the 2005 compiler.
Should we reco
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...]
>> Python sorely lacks; but I've also heard from more than one person
>> that CPAN sucks from a quality perspective. So I think we shouldn't
[...]
> (as for the CPAN quality, any public repository will end up being full
> of
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 4/16/06, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Personally, my instinct is that having the whole traceback in a
>> doctest is at least as ugly.
You don't need the whole traceback -- e.g.:
"""
If a URL is supplied, it must have an authority
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Tim Peters wrote:
[...]
>> Hmm, will 2.5's doctest work under Python 2.4? I guess that's not
>> guaranteed, since I don't see any comment in doctest.py implying it needs
>> to be compatible with old Pythons.
>
> doctest compatibility with 2.4 is neither a goal nor a non-goal f
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Tim Peters wrote:
[...]
> [also John]
>> Sorry, please ignore the post of mine I'm replying to here.
>>
>> I missed part of the thread, and Tim has already answered my question...
>
> That's news to Tim ;-)
You mentioned use of '...' / ELLIPSIS, IIRC, so I assumed that would w
Sorry, please ignore the post of mine I'm replying to here.
I missed part of the thread, and Tim has already answered my question...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, John J Lee wrote:
[...]
> Assuming this is fixed in 2.5 final, is there some way to write doctests that
> work on both 2.4 and 2
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
I'm not the one to decide, but at some time the traceback module should be
rewritten to match the interpreter behavior.
No argument from me about that.
I also think the traceback module should be corrected, and the test
cases u
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
I think I twice mailed everybody in Misc/ACKS. In principle, we want
to have agreements from everybody who ever contributed, so that we
can formally change the license (and so that it is clear to Python
users what the legal standing is).
[...]
Not s
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Paul Jimenez wrote:
Announcing uriparse.py, submitted for inclusion in the standard library.
Patch request 1462525.
[...]
abstractions"; however, this didn't mean anything to me. Saying
"urlparse doesn't comply with STD66 (aka RFC3986) because
it h
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Greg Ewing wrote:
> I just thought of a possible name for the
> Python package repository. We could call
> it the PIPE - Python Index of Packages
> and Extensions.
+1
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://m
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 3/17/06, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thought: We should drop all of httplib, urllib, urllib2, and ftplib,
>> and instead adopt some third-party library for HTTP/FTP/whatever,
>> write a Python wrapper, and use it instead. (The only suc
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>fuzz> Wasn't the proposal :
>
>fuzz> try:
>fuzz> something
>fuzz> except NameError, OtherError as e:
>fuzz> something...
>
> I'm not sure. I only saw as|with .
Fuzzyman is right.
> In your formulation the comma bi
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...]
> If you're only interested in classifying the three specific built-ins
> you mention, I'd check for the presense of certain attributes:
> hasattr(x, "lower") -> x is a string of some kind; hasattr(x, "sort")
> -> x is a list; hasattr(x, "update")
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Greg Wilson wrote:
[...]
> (Imagine having to write "list(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)"...)
[...]
I believe that was actually proposed on this list for Python 3.
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailma
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Greg Wilson wrote:
>> Like many things in Python where people pre-emptively believe one thing
>> or another, the interpreter's corrective feedback is immediate:
>
> Yup, that's the theory; it's a shame practice is different.
So what mistake(s) *do* your students make? As peop
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Thomas Heller wrote:
> John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >> only aclocal.m4 isn't clear to me about the license. Anyway, it could
> >> be that this file isn't needed afte
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Thomas Heller wrote:
[...]
> As I said in the other thread (where the discussion should probably be
> continued anyway):
>
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060113.html
>
> only aclocal.m4 isn't clear to me about the license. Anyway, it could
> be t
[John J Lee]
> But it's a very readable way to write a common operation. Perhaps one
> reason the discrepancy you point out doesn't bother me is that
> division is the least-used of the +-*/ arithmetic operations.
[Tony Meyer]
>
> Do you have evidence to back that up
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Tony Meyer wrote:
[...]
> Why does reusing a string method for something very different seem
> like a bad idea, but reusing a mathematical operator for something
> very different seem like a good idea?
[...]
That's easy -- it's because, if you're going to use a name, peopl
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Tony Meyer wrote:
[...]
> Well, if you include the much larger discussion on python-list,
> people (including me) have said that removing __div__ is a good
> idea. If it's included in the PEP, please at least include a
> justification and cover the problems with it. The
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Ian Bicking wrote:
[...]
> Losing .open() would make it much harder for anyone wanting to write,
> say, a URI library that implements the Path API.
[...]
Why? Could you expand a bit?
What's wrong with urlopen(filesystem_path_instance) ?
John
__
[Ian Bicking]
>Losing .open() would make it much harder for anyone wanting to write,
>say, a URI library that implements the Path API.
[John]
> Why? Could you expand a bit?
>
> What's wrong with urlopen(filesystem_path_instance) ?
[Ian]
>def read_config(path):
>text = path.open().r
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Thomas Mangin wrote:
[...]
> I have hit a bug with python 2.4.2 (on Mandriva 2006) using urllib2.
> The code which trigger the bug is as follow..
>
> import urllib2
> req = urllib2.Request("http://66.117.37.13/";)
>
> # makes no difference ..
> req.add_header('Connection', 'clo
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, John J Lee wrote:
> Might a buildbot running this setup of David Munman's (free MS compiler +
> NAnt interpreting the MS project file) be useful?
s/Munman/Murmann/
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pyth
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Tim Peters wrote:
[...]
> A problem for Windows buildbot slaves is that they need an appropriate
> compiler. Does this machine have MS VC 7.1 installed? If not, it
> can't compile the code. The Windows Python would also like to build
> several other packages (like bz2 and Tcl
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
[...to-and-fro re magic required to get a good SVN revision...]
Shouldn't the command 'svnversion' be used instead? -
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/re57.html
It's true that the output of this command does change with 'svn up', even
if the update
Hi
I attended the bug day on Sunday and reviewed six bugs/patches (1212287,
1215184, 1115886, 1372650, 1216942, 878275). So, I'm hoping one of those
nice people who offered 'review 5 get 1 free' might look at a patch of
mine. Test, documentation, and explanatory comments in the tracker are
all t
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
[...]
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/python/python/dist/src/Misc/README.valgrind?view=markup
The up-to-date version of that (from SVN instead of old CVS repository) is
here:
http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Misc/README.valgrind?view=markup
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Paul Jimenez wrote:
> It is my assertion that urlparse is currently broken. Specifically, I
> think that urlparse breaks an abstraction boundary with ill effect.
[...]
I have some comments, but I can't see a patch on SF. Did you post it?
John
_
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> Before I wipe out Include and svn up again is there any debugging I can do
> for someone smarter in the ways of Subversion than me? Regarding my
[...]
Output of the svnversion command? That shows switched and locally
modified files, etc.
I'm
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Andrew Edmondson wrote:
> We've found a problem using urllib.urljoin when upgrading
> from python 2.3 to 2.4. It no longer joins a particular
> corner case of URLs correctly (we think!).
>
> The code appears to follow the algorithm (from
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt)
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, John J Lee wrote:
[...]
> With the former, we have a more C-style syntax where meaning is determined
> purely by delimeters rather than by whitespace. Instead of braces '{' and
> '}', we have 'then' and 'elif'/'else&#x
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Thomas Lotze wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> >> x = (if a then
> >> b
> >> elif c then
> >> d
> >> else
> >> e
> >> )
> [...]
> >
> > I guess that's my point. To me, your latter is actually worse than
> >
> > if a:
> > x = b
> > e
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 9/20/05, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > > The real problem is that you can ditch most extension modules. 8-(
> > [...]
> >
> > *Is* tha
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Tim Lesher wrote:
> On 9/19/05, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was disappointed that that article (hey, it was the only issue of
> > ddj I've ever actually bought! :) didn't consider any concurrency
> > models other than shared memory threading.
>
> The probl
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, John J Lee wrote:
[...]
> I don't actively want a GIL-free Python. I was just making some arguments
[...]
Actually, FWIW, I don't know if I even *passively* want a GIL-free Python,
if it encourages threaded code (though I'd like to have that option for my
o
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The real problem is that you can ditch most extension modules. 8-(
[...]
*Is* that a showstopper for Python 3.0, though?
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 9/17/05, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...snip...]
[guido]
> If my hunch is right, I expect that instead of writing massively
> parallel applications, we will continue to write single-threaded
> applications that are ti
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Sokolov Yura wrote:
> > I think I know how to remove GIL Obviously I am an idiot.
>
> Not an idiot, just lazy :-) Please try to implement your ideas,
> and I predict that you will find:
> 1. it is a lot of work to implement
> 2. it requires chan
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Trent Mick wrote:
>
> > If this *does* get added (I'm +0) then let's call it "relpath" or
> > "relpathto" as in the various implementations out there:
>
> +1 on that, too. Preferably just "relpath".
[...]
+1 on adding this function, and on "relpath" as t
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Shane Hathaway wrote:
[...]
> I think this concept can be explained clearly. I'd like to try
> explaining PEP 340 to someone new to Python but not new to programming.
[...snip explanation...]
> Is it understandable so far?
Yes, excellent. Speaking as somebody who scanned the
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
> Seeing this example has convinced me of something. PEP 310 should use the
> 'with'
> keyword, and 'expression block' syntax should be used to denote the 'default
> object' semantics proposed for Python 3K. For example:
>
> class Key2AttributeErro
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Aahz wrote:
> Both entries so far look very good. Perhaps writing python-dev summaries
> could be a rotating position?
Or even a joint effort? It's up to the contributors, of course: just
a thought...
John
___
Python-Dev mailing
Hope these can get in before 2.4.1.
All include unit tests.
http://python.org/sf/1117339
cookielib and cookies with special names
http://python.org/sf/1117454
cookielib.LWPCookieJar incorrectly loads value-less cookies
http://python.org/sf/1117398
cookielib LWPCookieJar and MozillaC
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...]
> hope at least one person from the release team can be involved, e.g.
[...]
Guido, from python-announce list:
[...]
> Python 2.3.5 will be released from www.python.org within a few days
> containing a fix for this issue. Python 2.4.1 will be rele
Anyone like to commit 1028908?
Patch was written by module author (me), including an important doc
warning re (lack of) thread safety which I mistakenly thought had got into
2.4.0.
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.pyth
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:18 PM 12/8/04 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >I was pleasantly surprised to find a pointer to this article in a news
> >digest that the ACM emails me regularly (ACM TechNews).
> >
> >http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/28026-1.html
> >
> >One t
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > One thing that bugs me: the article says 3 or 4 times that Python is
> > slow, each time with a refutation ("but it's so flexible", "but it's
> > fast enough") but still, they sure seem to harp on the point. This is
> > a PR issue that Python needs
78 matches
Mail list logo
