On 4/17/07, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a rewrite could target 3.0 and 2.6 could use a backported
version of this *if* py3k compatibility mode is enabled? I'd love to
see at least the 3.0 version cleaned up.
A lot of these bugs can be fixed without forking. I've been
Great -- if you target 2.6, it'll automatically be merged into 3.0 the
next time somebody runs svnmerge. (Thomas?)
--Guido
On 4/18/07, Jason Orendorff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a rewrite could target 3.0 and 2.6 could use a
Alexander Belopolsky schrieb:
Python allows arbitrary sequences after * in calls, but an expression
following ** must be a (subclass of) dict. I believe * and ** should
be treated similarly and since f(*UserList(..)) is valid,
f(**UserDict(..)) should be valid as well.
Of course, I can
I'm +1 on the idea, but have no time to review the change.
On 4/18/07, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Belopolsky schrieb:
Python allows arbitrary sequences after * in calls, but an expression
following ** must be a (subclass of) dict. I believe * and ** should
be treated
*** The following messages occur in other successful tests too:
a DOS box should flash briefly ...
Always happens in test_subprocess, during the Windows-specific
test_creationflags. This is expected. When you /watch/ the tests
running on Windows, it's intended to prevent panic when a
Greg Ewing wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
Py_BUF_REQUIRE_READONLY - Raise excpetion if the buffer is writable.
Is there a use case for this?
Yes. The idea is used in NumPy all the time.
Suppose you want to write to an array but only have an algorithm that
works with contiguous data. Then you
Jim Jewett wrote:
Reading this message without the entire PEP in front of me showed some
confusing usage. (Details below) Most (but not all) I could resolve
from the PEP itself, but they could be clarified with different
constant names.
I'm going to adapt some suggestions made by you and
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 357 open ( +8) / 3745 closed ( +8) / 4102 total (+16)
Bugs: 958 open (+19) / 6657 closed ( +9) / 7615 total (+28)
RFE : 251 open ( +2) / 280 closed ( +2) / 531 total ( +4)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Help
Carl Banks wrote:
Ok, I've thought quite a bit about this, and I have an idea that I
think will be ok with you, and I'll be able to drop my main
objection. It's not a big change, either. The key is to explicitly
say whether the flag allows or requires. But I made a few other
changes as
