On 12/18/2013 08:54 AM, Tim Peters wrote:
Which reminds me. I used to think there was no such thing as a stupid
question. Then I discovered Stack Overflow ;-)
+1 QOTW
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman
On Dec 18, 2013 11:54 AM, "Tim Peters" wrote:
> [Daniel Holth]
> > But who could forget njzrs' wasp UAV software line 107, using
> > int=float?
> https://github.com/nzjrs/wasp/blob/master/sw/groundstation/wasp/__init__.py#L107
>
> I could forget it ;-) The remarkable thing about the two instance
[Daniel Holth]
> But who could forget njzrs' wasp UAV software line 107, using
> int=float?
> https://github.com/nzjrs/wasp/blob/master/sw/groundstation/wasp/__init__.py#L107
I could forget it ;-) The remarkable thing about the two instances of:
random.randrange(0.0,1.0, int=float)
in tha
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:31:47 -0500
Daniel Holth wrote:
> But who could forget njzrs' wasp UAV software line 107, using
> int=float?
> https://github.com/nzjrs/wasp/blob/master/sw/groundstation/wasp/__init__.py#L107
>
And the purpose is quite Pythonesque:
"""
Generates a noisy random wal
But who could forget njzrs' wasp UAV software line 107, using
int=float?
https://github.com/nzjrs/wasp/blob/master/sw/groundstation/wasp/__init__.py#L107
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> BTW, I bet a lavish dinner at PyCon that it is *only* Zope/ZODB that
> does this.
BTW, I bet a lavish dinner at PyCon that it is *only* Zope/ZODB that
does this. In the time we added this bogus dependency on undocumented
parameters, the PythonLabs team was at Zope and we didn't always get
our boundaries straight.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 18 Dec
On 18 December 2013 20:17, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>> 18.12.13 04:40, Benjamin Peterson написав(ла):
>>
>>> Mostly yes, but at least you could tell people to upgrade straight to
>>> 2.7.7 and skip 2.7.6.
>>
>>
>> It'll make the people to po
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 18.12.13 04:40, Benjamin Peterson написав(ла):
>
>> Mostly yes, but at least you could tell people to upgrade straight to
>> 2.7.7 and skip 2.7.6.
>
>
> It'll make the people to postpone the upgrade to 2.7.6 (which fixes many
> security bu
18.12.13 04:40, Benjamin Peterson написав(ла):
Mostly yes, but at least you could tell people to upgrade straight to
2.7.7 and skip 2.7.6.
It'll make the people to postpone the upgrade to 2.7.6 (which fixes many
security bugs) until 2.7.7 release, instead of correcting their
morally-broken p
Mostly yes, but at least you could tell people to upgrade straight to
2.7.7 and skip 2.7.6.
2013/12/17 Donald Stufft :
> Isn't changing it in 2.7.6 which is already released and then reverting in
> 2.7.7 worse? Either way 2.7.6 will have this change and be in the wild and
> broken for people who
Isn't changing it in 2.7.6 which is already released and then reverting in
2.7.7 worse? Either way 2.7.6 will have this change and be in the wild and
broken for people who depend on it
> On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
> 2013/12/17 Antoine Pitrou :
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 201
2013/12/17 Antoine Pitrou :
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:18:25 -0500
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
>>
>>
>> Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
>> a late-in-the-release-
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:18:25 -0500
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
>
>
> Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
> a late-in-the-release-cycle third dot release? It caused,
[Barry]
> ...
> I don't think the API *has* to change in a backward incompatible way either.
> The methods could be given **kws with a bit of hackery to figure out whether
> the old API was being used (keys: int, default, maxwidth) or the new API was
> being used (keys: _int and _maxwidth). Yeah i
This really seems a case of ZODB depending on internals where it
really, really should have known better. Calling this "a de-facto
public interface" seems way too far a stretch of the intention. And
please don't fix it by version-testing and using a different argument
name...
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Dec 17, 2013, at 01:18 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
>
>Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
>a late-in-the-release-cycle third dot release? It caused, ZODB's tests
>to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 01:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This really seems a case of ZODB depending on internals where it
> really, really should have known better. Calling this "a de-facto
> public interface" seems way too far a stretch of the intention. A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
a late-in-the-release-cycle third dot release? It caused, ZODB's tests
to fail, for instance.
While the docstring said, "Don't u
18 matches
Mail list logo
