On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:42 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> As for the volatile marker - I believe the code is also
> correct without it, since the owned field is only accessed
> through initialization and Interlocked operations.
Furthermore, if the code weren't correct, "volatile" would only be
h
>> The python I use (win32 2.6.2) does not complain if it cannot read
>> from or write to a .pyc; and thus it handles multiple python processes
>> trying to create .pyc files at the same time. Is the .zip case really
>> any different?
[ snip discussion of difficulty of writing a sharing-safe updat
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 13:19, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> How do you write to a zipfile while others are reading it?
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> By hating concurrency (i.e. I don't have an answer which kills my idea).
The python I use (win32 2.6.2) does not complain
On 10/10/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>cmd, *args = input.split()
These examples also have a reasonable implementation using list.pop(),
albeit one that requires more typing. On the plus side, it does not violate
DRY and is explicit about the error cases.
args = input.split(
On 6/20/05, Dmitry Dvoinikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excuse me if I couldn't find that in the existing PEPs, but
> wouldn't that be useful to have a construct that explicitly
> tells that we know an exception of specific type could happen
> within a block, like:
> ignore TypeError:
> do s
