Travis Oliphant wrote:
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
Carl Banks wrote:
Travis Oliphant wrote:
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
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python
community, I'm happy to announce the release of Python 2.5.1
(FINAL)
This is the first bugfix release of Python 2.5. Python 2.5
is now in bugfix-only mode; no new features are being added.
According to the release notes, over 150 bugs and
There is one thing I'd like to see changed in a future python. I always
found it surprising, that
x = [1,2,3,4,5]
x[1:10]
[2, 3, 4, 5]
is not an error. This is perhaps the only case (but a fundamental one!)
where an error is silently ignored.
I really can't think of a good justification for
[+python-3000; followups please remove python-dev]
-1
While this may be theoretically preferable, I believe that in practice
changing this would be a major pain for very little gain. I don't
recall ever finding a bug related to this feature, and I believe it's
occasionally useful.
Here's
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1
Me too.
While this may be theoretically preferable, I believe that in practice
changing this would be a major pain for very little gain. I don't
recall ever finding a bug related to this feature, and I believe it's
occasionally useful.
I find it
Travis Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I'm good with using an identifier to differentiate between an allowed
| flag and a require flag. I'm not a big fan of
| VERY_LONG_IDENTIFIER_NAMES though. Just enough to understand what it
| means but not so much that
Travis Oliphant wrote:
you would like to make the original memory
read-only until you are done with the algorithm and have copied the data
back into memory.
Okay, I see what you mean now.
Maybe this should be called Py_BUF_LOCK_CONTENTS or
something to make the semantics clearer. Otherwise
