On 2011-02-10, at 21:47 , Éric Araujo wrote:
Ideas are usually discussed first on python-ideas to assess usefulness,
get the pulse of the community, beat the API into shape and such things
before coming up to python-dev. (A number of core devs are on both lists.)
You may want to search the
Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Mark Shannon ma...@dcs.gla.ac.uk wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Please, don't just document all these.
Don't add them to the API, unless they are really needed.
We only add functions when they are actually needed (by us, usually).
If only
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:04 PM, giampaolo.rodola
python-check...@python.org wrote:
Author: giampaolo.rodola
Date: Fri Feb 11 14:04:18 2011
New Revision: 88395
Log:
asyncore: introduce a new 'closed' attribute to make sure that dispatcher
gets closed only once.
In different occasions
I'm sorry, I'm going to revert those checkins.
They are very minor changes which I'm sure don't break anything, but I
understand your complain.
--- Giampaolo
http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib/
http://code.google.com/p/psutil/
2011/2/11 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at
Le vendredi 11 février 2011 à 14:52 +0100, Giampaolo Rodolà a écrit :
New Revision: 88395
Log:
asyncore: introduce a new 'closed' attribute to make sure that dispatcher
gets closed only once.
In different occasions close() might be called more than once, causing
problems with
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
Le vendredi 11 février 2011 à 14:52 +0100, Giampaolo Rodolà a écrit :
New Revision: 88395
Log:
asyncore: introduce a new 'closed' attribute to make sure that dispatcher
gets closed only once.
In
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2011-02-04 - 2011-02-11)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open2627 (+42)
closed 20348 (+34)
total 22975 (+76)
Open issues
On 2/11/2011 4:29 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Now that the issue has been brought up, it can certainly be taken into
consideration for 3.3. The idea of defining a Py_PORTABLE_API that is
even more restrictive than PEP 384 (e.g. eliminating lots of old cruft
that is a legacy of
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
And finally remember that asyncore is the most monkey-patched module
in the world. :-)
I propose that in Python 3.3 we rename asyncore to barrel_of_monkeys.
--
Daniel Stutzbach
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:16:12 -0500
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 2/11/2011 4:29 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Now that the issue has been brought up, it can certainly be taken into
consideration for 3.3. The idea of defining a Py_PORTABLE_API that is
even more
2011/2/11 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:16:12 -0500
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 2/11/2011 4:29 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Now that the issue has been brought up, it can certainly be taken into
consideration for 3.3. The idea of
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:11:54 -0800
Daniel Stutzbach stutzb...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
And finally remember that asyncore is the most monkey-patched module
in the world. :-)
I propose that in Python 3.3 we rename
2011/2/11 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:11:54 -0800
Daniel Stutzbach stutzb...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
And finally remember that asyncore is the most monkey-patched module
in the world. :-)
Yeah, the original API design (which is very inflexible) and the lack
of maintenance for many years is at the base of asyncore problems.
I still think it worths some love as a stdlib module, though.
For 3.3 I have in mind to revamp asyncore/asynchat a bit by
introducing SSL support and finally add
1. CPython developers
2. authors of CPython extensions
3. developers embedding a CPython interpreter (or interpreters) into
their application
This makes me wonder who `owns' the API.
Is the CPython developers, the Python community as a whole, the PSF?
(Another one for Python-ideas)
On 2/11/2011 1:35 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2011/2/11 Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:16:12 -0500
Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 2/11/2011 4:29 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Now that the issue has been brought up, it can certainly be taken
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.netwrote:
Daniel Stutzbach stutzb...@google.com wrote:
I propose that in Python 3.3 we rename asyncore to barrel_of_monkeys.
Would that be a Mapping or a Sequence?
Before or after monkey-patching? :-)
--
Daniel Stutzbach
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Giampaolo Rodolà g.rod...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, the original API design (which is very inflexible) and the lack
of maintenance for many years is at the base of asyncore problems.
I still think it worths some love as a stdlib module, though.
Oh, definitely.
Antoine Pitrou writes:
Would that be a Mapping or a Sequence?
Sure it would be nowhere near as predictable as a Mapping or Sequence,
so Isuppose it would be a Container ... although the probability of
OverflowException is near 1.
___
Python-Dev
19 matches
Mail list logo
