Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On 11/24/05, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Should users have access to the search path (through a
>>>codecs.unregister())?
>>
>>Maybe, but why would you want to unregister a search function ?
>>
>>
>>>If so, should it search from the end of the
>>>list to the
On 11/24/05, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Should users have access to the search path (through a
> > codecs.unregister())?
>
> Maybe, but why would you want to unregister a search function ?
>
> > If so, should it search from the end of the
> > list to the beginning to remove an i
Neal Norwitz wrote:
> While running regrtest with -R to find reference leaks I found a usage
> issue. When a codec is registered it is stored in the interpreter
> state and cannot be removed. Since it is stored as a list, if you
> repeated add the same search function, you will get duplicates in
While running regrtest with -R to find reference leaks I found a usage
issue. When a codec is registered it is stored in the interpreter
state and cannot be removed. Since it is stored as a list, if you
repeated add the same search function, you will get duplicates in the
list and they can't be r
