Hello,
+1
Thanks all, for your warm welcome.
The usual caveats apply though:
- don't get carried away with the privileges
- even core devs still put patches on the tracker sometimes
- if in doubt, ask for advice on python-dev (or IRC)
- make sure to subscribe
2010/2/24 skip s...@pobox.com:
Some of you have probably already seen this, but in case you haven't:
http://www.staringispolite.com/likepython/
:-)
I'm reminded of LOLPython: http://bit.ly/271rt.
--
Cheers,
Simon B.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Hello Raymond,
Named tuples have compatibility code to enable them to work on
IronPython without frame support, but unfortunately this doesn't allow
pickling / unpickling of named tuples.
One fix is to manually set __module__ on the named tuples once created,
but I wonder if it would be
  http://www.staringispolite.com/likepython/
Simon I'm reminded of LOLPython: http://bit.ly/271rt.
You know, I'm thinking while both are obviously tongue-in-cheek we should
probably include them on the /dev/implementations page of python.org,
probably in a separate section at the
On 26/02/2010 17:26, s...@pobox.com wrote:
  http://www.staringispolite.com/likepython/
Simon I'm reminded of LOLPython:http://bit.ly/271rt.
You know, I'm thinking while both are obviously tongue-in-cheek we should
probably include them on the /dev/implementations page of
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 26/02/2010 17:26, s...@pobox.com wrote:
  http://www.staringispolite.com/likepython/
Simon I'm reminded of LOLPython:http://bit.ly/271rt.
You know, I'm thinking while both are obviously
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 19:37, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Lennart I would like if we could look into making a timezone module
Lennart that works on Python 2.5 to 3.2 that uses system data...
2.5, 2.6 and 3.1 are completely off the radar screen at this point. The
best you could hope for is
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm worrying that adding such a
thing to stdlib will do so in an unfinished state, and we'll just en
up with yet another state of semi-brokenness.
I valid worry, and compelling.
As I've alluded to before, leaving it out
Hello,
This is a follow-up of the Pycon summit + sprints on packaging.
This is what we have planned to do:
1. refactor distutils in a new standalone version called distutils2
[this is done already and we are actively working in the code]
2. completely revert distutils in Lib/ and Doc/ so the
Meador Inge wrote:
3. Using Decimal keeps the desired precision,
Well, sort of, but then you end up doing arithmetic in
decimal instead of binary, which could give different
results.
Maybe the solution is to give ctypes long double objects
the ability to do arithmetic?
--
Greg
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 16:13, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nzwrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
I thought we agreed at the language summit that if a .pyc was in the place
of the source file it *could* be imported from - making pyc only
distributions possible.
Ah, that's okay, then.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 13:44, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
This is a follow-up of the Pycon summit + sprints on packaging.
This is what we have planned to do:
1. refactor distutils in a new standalone version called distutils2
[this is done already and we are actively
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
[..]
I assume you want the Distutils2 component to auto-assign to you like
Distutils currently does? If so I can add the component for you if people
don't object to the new component.
Sounds good -- Thanks
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
And personally, I don't see what bytecode-only modules buy you. The
obfuscation argument is bunk as we all know. Bytecode contains so much data
that disassembling it gives you a very clear picture of what the original
code
On Feb 26, 2010, at 02:09 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
But a benefit of no longer supporting bytecode-only modules by default is it
cuts back on possible stat calls which slows down Python's startup time (a
complaint I hear a lot). Performance issues become even more acute if you try
to come up with
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 14:29, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
And personally, I don't see what bytecode-only modules buy you. The
obfuscation argument is bunk as we all know. Bytecode contains so much
data
On 26/02/2010 22:09, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 16:13, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz
mailto:greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
I thought we agreed at the language summit that if a .pyc was
in the place of the source file it
Hello everybody! I hope you all had as great a time at Pycon 2010 as I did.
No time to begin recovering though, we're on to Python 2.6.5 rc 1, which I
would like to release on Monday. We have one showstopper still open, and I'll
try to respond to that asap.
http://bugs.python.org/issue7250
On approximately 2/26/2010 2:55 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Brett Cannon:
Maybe Greg's and my response to the mention of dropping this feature
is too strong -- after all we're both dinosaurs. And maybe the
developers who want the feature can write their
The one issue I thought would be resolved by not easily allowing
.pyc-only distributions is the case when you rename a file (say
module.py to newmodule.py) and there is a module.pyc laying around,
and you don't get the ImportError you would expect from import
module -- and to make it worse
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 16:58, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
The one issue I thought would be resolved by not easily allowing
.pyc-only distributions is the case when you rename a file (say
module.py to newmodule.py) and there is a module.pyc laying around,
and you don't get the
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
The one issue I thought would be resolved by not easily allowing
.pyc-only distributions is the case when you rename a file (say
module.py to newmodule.py) and there is a module.pyc laying around,
and you don't get the
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 15:35, Glenn Linderman
v+pyt...@g.nevcal.comv%2bpyt...@g.nevcal.com
wrote:
On approximately 2/26/2010 2:55 PM, came the following characters from the
keyboard of Brett Cannon:
Maybe Greg's and my response to the mention of dropping this feature
is too strong
On Feb 26, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 26/02/2010 22:09, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 16:13, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz
wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
I thought we agreed at the language summit that if a .pyc was in
the place of the source file
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:09:26 am Brett Cannon wrote:
I think it's almost a dis-service to support bytecode-only
files as it leads people who are misinformed or simply don't take the
time to understand what is contained in a .pyc file into a false
sense of security about their code not being
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 17:20, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 26/02/2010 22:09, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 16:13, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nzwrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
I thought we agreed
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:53:36 am Michael Foord wrote:
On 26/02/2010 17:26, s...@pobox.com wrote:
  http://www.staringispolite.com/likepython/
Simon I'm reminded of LOLPython:http://bit.ly/271rt.
You know, I'm thinking while both are obviously tongue-in-cheek we
should
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 02:09 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
But a benefit of no longer supporting bytecode-only modules by default is it
cuts back on possible stat calls which slows down Python's startup time (a
complaint I hear a lot). Performance issues become even more acute if
On approximately 2/26/2010 5:13 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Brett Cannon:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 15:35, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com
mailto:v%2bpyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
On approximately 2/26/2010 2:55 PM, came the following characters
from the
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 20:08, Glenn Linderman
v+pyt...@g.nevcal.comv%2bpyt...@g.nevcal.com
wrote:
On approximately 2/26/2010 5:13 PM, came the following characters from the
keyboard of Brett Cannon:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 15:35, Glenn Linderman
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 15:35, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com
When a .pyc is renamed to .py, Python (3.1 at least) recognizes and uses
it... I assume by design, rather than accident, but I don't know the
history.
On approximately 2/26/2010 8:31 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Brett Cannon:
I'm not sure why what you did is different than what I did,
-M uses runpy which is not directly equivalent to importing.
OK, that gives me some good keywords for searching
32 matches
Mail list logo
