On 2/19/08, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I don't, which is why I would find it interesting to run some
queries on the roundup database to have completion statistics for low
activity tickets. Is is possible to get a copy of that db somehow?
I would rather not make it
Christian Heimes wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
There there's the Status field. I understand open and closed, but
what's the semantic of pending. Is it awaiting triage, awaiting status
assignment, or what?
I've used pending for two states. For one I've put an issue on pending
state when it
Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
On 2/11/08, Travis Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My perception is that you are seeing too much of a connection between
the C-compiler and the PEP description of memory. Perhaps that's not
it, and I'm missing something else.
Travis, all this make me believe that
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:53:14PM -0500, Mark Dickinson wrote:
* New float methods: is_finite, is_inf, is_integer and is_nan.
* New cmath functions: phase, polar and rect, isinf and isnan.
* New complex method: is_finite.
This may be a dumb question, but is there any particular
On Feb 19, 2008 12:22 PM, Facundo Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/2/19, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Problem is, we don't have an 'rfe' keyword anymore :)
Shall we grow one again?
Isn't the RFE type field enough?
What would happen with PEP 42? will it be deprecated?
I think it
I'm finishing up a PLY lexer and parser for the current CVS version of
the Python grammar. As part of it I've been testing a lot of dark
corners in the grammar definition and implementation. Python 2.5 has
some small and rare problems which I'm pleased to note have been
pretty much fixed in
We really do need to write some of this down in an information track PEP
so we're all using the same values to mean the same thing...
There is actually an official meaning to pending: An issue marked
pending will get automatically closed by the tracker after some period
of time (which used to
Hi,
What is the policy regarding nosy lists? Is it appropriate it add people to
it besides oneself? As I cannot assign items, I'm sometimes tempted to add
someone relevant to the list. (ie Should I add Georg to documentation
related issues?)
Thanks for your patience,
Benjamin
--
Benjamin
Problem is, we don't have an 'rfe' keyword anymore :)
Shall we grow one again?
What's wrong with the rfe type? Why does it have to be a keyword?
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Feb 19, 2008 1:38 PM, Andrew Dalke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm finishing up a PLY lexer and parser for the current CVS version of
the Python grammar. As part of it I've been testing a lot of dark
corners in the grammar definition and implementation. Python 2.5 has
some small and rare
On Feb 19, 2008 1:38 PM, Andrew Dalke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
def spam((a) = c):
print a
On Feb 20, 2008 12:29 AM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The error might be odd, but I don't see why that should be allowed
syntax. Having a parameter surrounded by a parentheses like that makes
Martin v. Löwis writes:
What is the policy regarding nosy lists? Is it appropriate it add people
to it besides oneself? As I cannot assign items, I'm sometimes tempted
to add someone relevant to the list. (ie Should I add Georg to
documentation related issues?)
I would find it
But shouldn't there be a way to invoke SSL_shutdown? You need to get
the close_notify alert message sent, IIUC.
Perhaps that would be nice, but switching to plain-text use of the
socket can be coordinated outside the SSL protocol. I had an accessor
for SSL_shutdown, in an earlier version, but
Andrew Dalke wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 1:38 PM, Andrew Dalke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
def spam((a) = c):
print a
On Feb 20, 2008 12:29 AM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
Are you asking why the decision was made to make the expression
illegal, or why the grammar is flagging it is
2008/2/19, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Problem is, we don't have an 'rfe' keyword anymore :)
Shall we grow one again?
What's wrong with the rfe type? Why does it have to be a keyword?
For me, none. I'm just trying to converge the mail thread to a result, :)
As far as I can see,
Steve Holden wrote:
[...]
The one that surprised me was the legality of
def eggs((a, )=c):
pass
That just seems like unpacking-abuse to me.
Needless to say, a call that tries to *use* the default value fails
horribly, as the parameter form does require an iterable:
def
Okay, my conclusion is
def f((a)=5)
is wrong, and the code should be changed to report a better error
message. I'll file a bug against that.
and I'm going with Brett suggestion that
[x for x in 1,]
is not supported because it's almost certainly a programming error. I
think therefore the
On Feb 19, 2008 6:15 PM, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
[...]
The one that surprised me was the legality of
def eggs((a, )=c):
pass
That just seems like unpacking-abuse to me.
Needless to say, a call that tries to *use* the default value
IIUC, RFC 4217 mandates that a TLS shutdown is exchanged (although they
apparently didn't read the TLS spec when they wrote the RFC, as the
I'm pretty dubious about section 5 there. I don't think reverting to
a plaintext state, once you've been in TLS, happens in real life to
real connections
On Feb 18, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
A bug tracker is a much better way of registering such information.
It also
can be easier referenced in the future since even though when it is
closed,
the debate and other stuff will remain in the tracker's tickets for
Benjamin Peterson schrieb:
Hi,
What is the policy regarding nosy lists? Is it appropriate it add people
to it besides oneself? As I cannot assign items, I'm sometimes tempted
to add someone relevant to the list. (ie Should I add Georg to
documentation related issues?)
In my case, yes
21 matches
Mail list logo
