It is easier if we see it beforehand:
-
leave = False
alist = [1,2,3,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
for item in alist and not leave:
if item is 1: leave = True
Apart from other objections, this is valid Python now, and failing with
'TypeError: iteration over non-sequence'.
sel
Donovan Baarda wrote:
The fact that partial reads/writes are possible without non-blocking
mode changes things a fair bit. Also, the lack of fnctl support in
Windows needs to be taken into account too.
... [ snip ] ...
The lack of support on win32 for non-blocking mode, combined with the
reduced ne
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:40:27AM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Perhaps you could focus in 728278. It addresses some of the issues you
> have addressed in 754022, but it is not properly formatted. If you could
> merge into your patch the result of "set(728278)-set(754022)", it would
> be grea
Nick Coghlan wrote:
I've put a first cut at generator expressions for the AST branch on
Sourceforge. It's enough to get test_grammar to pass, and tinkering at
the interactive prompt appears to work.
I'm going to be out of the country until late next week, so if the folks
sprinting on the AST bra
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Brett C. wrote:
>
>> OK, thanks to John Ehresman here at PyCon sprint I got logistix's
>> patch applied. Beyond a warning that a warning that decode_unicode()
>> is never called and the parser module failing to compile under Windows
>> everything should be fine for compiling
Oops, you're right.
What I should have said is to use an empty docstring
as
follows:
""
"""Function docstring."""
def foo:
...
or:
"""Module docstring."""
""
def foo:
...
So the first docstring is the module docstring, and
the next is the first class/function. And again, if
th
I've uploaded a new package to the new PyPI. Editing this
new packages gives me a unicode error. The URL is
http://www.python.org/pypi?:action=submit_form&name=ll-ansistyle&version=0.6.1
The error I get is the following:
---
Error...
There's been a problem with your request
exceptions.UnicodeDecode
Zitat von Walter Dörwald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've uploaded a new package to the new PyPI. Editing this
> new packages gives me a unicode error. The URL is
>
> http://www.python.org/pypi?:action=submit_form&name=ll-ansistyle&version=0.6.1
I see that the package is online now, so I assume that
i
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:32:46 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Don't set the Python version for sdist uploads.
Why not? I realize that version is more important for pre-compiled
extension modules, but it applies even to a pure python package.
Source code that uses @decoration won't work in pyth
> Zitat von Walter Dörwald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I've uploaded a new package to the new PyPI. Editing this
>> new packages gives me a unicode error. The URL is
>>
>> http://www.python.org/pypi?:action=submit_form&name=ll-ansistyle&version=0.6.1
>
> I see that the package is online now, so I ass
Going on with the old bugs checking, here are the results for 2.2.1.
When I'll finish, this will be put in an informational PEP.
When I verified the bug, I filled two fields:
- Summary: the same subject as in SF
- Group: the bug's group at verifying time.
- Bug #: the bug number
- Verified: is th
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 16:09, Jim Jewett wrote:
> Why not? I realize that version is more important for pre-compiled
> extension modules, but it applies even to a pure python package.
>
> Source code that uses @decoration won't work in python 1.5
This is distinct from the version of Python
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:00:50 -0500, "Fred L. Drake, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2005 16:09, Jim Jewett wrote:
> > Why not? I realize that version is more important for pre-compiled
> > extension modules, but it applies even to a pure python package.
> > Source code t
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 18:29, Jim Jewett wrote:
> > This is distinct from the version of Python used to build a
> > distribution.
>
> In theory, yes.
>
> My suspicion is that if people are using the defaults, then they are
> probably also using a python version that they have tested with -
Zitat von Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How about changing it to tack on a "(guess)" instead of just deleting it?
I think it would be confusing to users. Currently, the only version
you would get into the database is 2.5, as earlier versions don't
have the upload command. So we would have all
Good day,
I just noticed that decoration of classes was not included with the
@decoration syntax that made it into Python 2.4. While I understand
that class decoration was not a part of PEP 318, I remember people were
interested in decorating classes for all sorts of reasons, among them as
a pre
> I just noticed that decoration of classes was not included with the
> @decoration syntax that made it into Python 2.4. While I understand
> that class decoration was not a part of PEP 318, I remember people were
> interested in decorating classes for all sorts of reasons, among them as
> a prefi
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 14:20, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It would take a lot of convincing before I would think that class
> @decorators are better than metaclasses.
>
> In any case the fact that it wasn't in the PEP was plenty of reason
> not to add it to 2.4.
Minor clarification - it _was_ in
18 matches
Mail list logo
