Guido van Rossum writes:
> I agree that the spirit of the PEP is to stop at the first coding
> cookie found. Would it be okay if I updated the PEP to clarify this?
> I'll definitely also update the docs.
+1, it never occurred to me that the specification could mean otherwise.
I agree that the spirit of the PEP is to stop at the first coding
cookie found. Would it be okay if I updated the PEP to clarify this?
I'll definitely also update the docs.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 at 13:31 Guido van Rossum
On 2016-03-15 20:53, MRAB wrote:
On 2016-03-15 20:30, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I came across a file that had two different coding cookies -- one on
the first line and one on the second. CPython uses the first, but mypy
happens to use the second. I couldn't find anything in the spec or
docs
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 01:30:08PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I came across a file that had two different coding cookies -- one on
> the first line and one on the second. CPython uses the first, but mypy
> happens to use the second. I couldn't find anything in the spec or
> docs ruling out
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 at 13:31 Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I came across a file that had two different coding cookies -- one on
> the first line and one on the second. CPython uses the first, but mypy
> happens to use the second. I couldn't find anything in the spec or
> docs
On 2016-03-15 20:30, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I came across a file that had two different coding cookies -- one on
the first line and one on the second. CPython uses the first, but mypy
happens to use the second. I couldn't find anything in the spec or
docs ruling out the second interpretation.
I came across a file that had two different coding cookies -- one on
the first line and one on the second. CPython uses the first, but mypy
happens to use the second. I couldn't find anything in the spec or
docs ruling out the second interpretation. Does anyone have a
suggestion (apart from
On 15 March 2016 at 08:04, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 15 March 2016 at 15:15, Martin Panter wrote:
>> _freeze_importlib.o: _freeze_importlib.c Makefile
>>
>> _freeze_importlib: _freeze_importlib.o [. . .]
>> $(LINKCC) [. . .]
>>
>>
> On 15 Mar 2016, at 01:08, Jim Baker wrote:
>
> I have no vested interest in this, other than the continuing work we have
> done to make Jython compatible with OpenSSL's model, warts and all.
>
> But the fact that BoringSSL cleans up the OpenSSL API
>
On 15 March 2016 at 15:15, Martin Panter wrote:
> The problem is not the reference to Makefile. The graminit files do
> not depend on Makefile. The bigger problem is that the checked-in
> files depend on compiled programs. This is a summary of the current
> rules for
10 matches
Mail list logo