On Aug 9, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> The data gathered by Jack and Steven's research indicate that the
> number
> of cases where TerminatingException would be useful is ZERO. Try
> not to
> introduce a new builtin that no one will ever use. Try not to add
> a new
> word wh
On Aug 10, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>> Then I don't follow what you mean by "moved under os".
>>>
>>
>> In other words, to get the exception, do ``from os import
>> WindowsError``. Unfortunately we don't have a generic win module to
>> put it under. Maybe in the platform modu
On Aug 11, 2005, at 2:41 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Remember, the Exception reorganization is for Python 3.0/3k/whatever,
> not for 2.5 .
Huh, I could *swear* we were talking about fixing things for
2.5...but I see at least the current version of the PEP says it's
talking about 3.0. If that's
(1) Is there a reason that you never shrink sets for discard/remove/pop?
(set difference will do a one-time shrink, if there are enough dummy
entries, but even then, it doesn't look at the %filled, so a
merge-related overallocation will stick around)
I note the you do the same with dicts, but
On 8/11/05, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2005, at 2:41 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > Remember, the Exception reorganization is for Python 3.0/3k/whatever,
> > not for 2.5 .
>
> Huh, I could *swear* we were talking about fixing things for
> 2.5...but I see at least the cur
On 8/11/05, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that's true, this is hardly worth discussing as
> 3.0 is never going to happen anyways.
You are wrong. So wrong.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev
[Jim Jewett]
> (1) Is there a reason that you never shrink sets for
discard/remove/pop?
Yes, to avoid adding an O(n) step to what would otherwise be an O(1)
operation. These tight, granular methods are so fast that even checking
for potential resizes would impact their performance.
Also, I was
[James Y Knight]
> Huh, I could *swear* we were talking about fixing things for
> 2.5...but I see at least the current version of the PEP says it's
> talking about 3.0. If that's true, this is hardly worth discussing as
> 3.0 is never going to happen anyways.
>
> And here I was hoping this was an
So I'm currently planning for a 2.4.2 sometime around mid September. I figure
we cut a release candidate either on the 7th or 14th, and a final a week
later.
In addition, I'd like to suggest we think about a first alpha of 2.5 sometime
during March 2006, with a final release sometime around Ma
On Monday 08 August 2005 20:13, Ilya Sandler wrote:
> > At OSCON, Anthony Baxter made the point that pdb is currently one of the
> > more unPythonic modules.
>
> What is unpythonic about pdb? Is this part of Anthony's presentation
> online? (Google found a summary and slides from presentation but t
On Sunday 07 August 2005 15:33, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Ah, ok. That's true. It doesn't mean you can't do proper merging
> with subversion - it only means that it is harder, as you need to
> figure out the revision range that you want to merge.
>
> If this is too painful, you can probably use subv
On Aug 11, 2005, at 3:02 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> On Monday 08 August 2005 20:13, Ilya Sandler wrote:
>
>>> At OSCON, Anthony Baxter made the point that pdb is currently one
>>> of the
>>> more unPythonic modules.
>>>
>>
>> What is unpythonic about pdb? Is this part of Anthony's presentation
12 matches
Mail list logo
