On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:20:06PM +0200, Éric Araujo wrote:
if hasattr(os, symlink) and hasattr(os, link):
# For systems that support symbolic and hard links.
if tarinfo.issym():
+ if os.path.exists(targetpath):
+
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info writes:
Robert Kern wrote:
On 4/28/11 8:44 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The real question should be, why does Python treat all NANs as
signalling NANs instead of quiet NANs? I don't believe this helps
anyone.
Actually, Python treats all NaNs as quiet
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Actually, Python treats all NaNs as quiet NaNs and never signalling NaNs.
Sorry, did I get that backwards? I thought it was signalling NANs that cause
a signal (in Python terms, an exception)?
If
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg, 28.04.2011 22:23:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
DasIch, 28.04.2011 20:55:
the CPython
benchmarks have an extensive set of microbenchmarks in the pybench
package
Try not to care too much about pybench. There
Ben Finney wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info writes:
Robert Kern wrote:
On 4/28/11 8:44 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The real question should be, why does Python treat all NANs as
signalling NANs instead of quiet NANs? I don't believe this helps
anyone.
Actually, Python treats all
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:20:06PM +0200, Éric Araujo wrote:
The kind of race condition which can happen here is if an attacker
creates targetpath between os.path.exists and os.unlink. Whether it
is an exploitable flaw
Terry Reedy writes:
Python treats it as if it were a number:
As I said, so did the committee, and that was its mistake that we are
more or less stuck with.
The committee didn't really have a choice. You could ask that they
call NaNs something else, but some bit pattern is going to
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 28, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Holger Krekel wrote:
On Thu, Apr
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 09:52, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:20:06PM +0200, Éric Araujo wrote:
The kind of race condition which can happen here is if an attacker
creates targetpath
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Holger Krekel holger.kre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 28, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Raymond Hettinger
Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg, 28.04.2011 22:23:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
DasIch, 28.04.2011 20:55:
the CPython
benchmarks have an extensive set of microbenchmarks in the pybench
package
Try not to care too
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely understand this other code/thread deletes the path
between exists() and unlink() case - it indeed is a race condition
waiting to happen. What I didn't understand was Antoine's example of
attacker creates
Mark Shannon wrote:
Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de
wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg, 28.04.2011 22:23:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
DasIch, 28.04.2011 20:55:
the CPython
benchmarks have an extensive set of microbenchmarks in the pybench
package
On 29/04/2011 11:04, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Mark Shannon wrote:
Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Behnelstefan...@behnel.de
wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg, 28.04.2011 22:23:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
DasIch, 28.04.2011 20:55:
the CPython
benchmarks have an extensive set of
On 28 April 2011 23:07, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Holger Krekel wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28,
On 27.04.2011 23:23, Vinay Sajip wrote:
I've been recently trying to improve the test coverage for the logging
package,
and have got to a not unreasonable point:
logging/__init__.py 99% (96%)
logging/config.py 89% (85%)
logging/handlers.py 60% (54%)
where the figures in parentheses
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
On 27.04.2011 23:23, Vinay Sajip wrote:
I've been recently trying to improve the test coverage for the logging
package,
and have got to a not unreasonable point:
logging/__init__.py 99% (96%)
logging/config.py 89% (85%)
Given those facts I think including pybench is a mistake. It does not
allow for a fair or meaningful comparison between implementations
which is one of the things the suite is supposed to be used for in the
future.
This easily leads to misinterpretation of the results from this
particular
DasIch wrote:
Given those facts I think including pybench is a mistake. It does not
allow for a fair or meaningful comparison between implementations
which is one of the things the suite is supposed to be used for in the
future.
This easily leads to misinterpretation of the results from
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:29:46 +0200
DasIch dasdas...@googlemail.com wrote:
Given those facts I think including pybench is a mistake. It does not
allow for a fair or meaningful comparison between implementations
which is one of the things the suite is supposed to be used for in the
future.
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info writes:
I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. I'm referring to functions which
potentially produce NANs, not the exceptions themselves. A calculation
which might have produced a (quiet) NAN as the result instead raises
an exception (which I'm treating as
It would be convenient if replacing items in a dictionary returns the
new dictionary, in a manner analogous to str.replace(). What do you
think?
::
# Current behavior
x = {'key1': 1}
x.update(key1=3) == None
x == {'key1': 3} # Original variable has changed
# Possible
Roy Hyunjin Han wrote:
It would be convenient if replacing items in a dictionary returns the
new dictionary, in a manner analogous to str.replace(). What do you
think?
::
# Current behavior
x = {'key1': 1}
x.update(key1=3) == None
x == {'key1': 3} # Original variable has
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:27:46 -0400, Roy Hyunjin Han
starsareblueandfara...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be convenient if replacing items in a dictionary returns the
new dictionary, in a manner analogous to str.replace(). What do you
think?
This belongs on python-ideas, but the short answer is
Hi! Seems like a question for python-ideas mailing list, not for python-dev.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:27:46AM -0400, Roy Hyunjin Han wrote:
It would be convenient if replacing items in a dictionary returns the
new dictionary, in a manner analogous to str.replace(). What do you
think?
::
2011/4/29 R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com:
2011/4/29 Roy Hyunjin Han starsareblueandfara...@gmail.com:
It would be convenient if replacing items in a dictionary returns the
new dictionary, in a manner analogous to str.replace()
This belongs on python-ideas, but the short answer is no.
You can implement this in your own subclass of dict, no?
Yes, I just thought it would be convenient to have in the language
itself, but the responses to my post seem to indicate that [not
returning the updated object] is an intended language feature for
mutable types like dict or list.
class
On 4/29/11 1:35 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Steven D'Apranost...@pearwood.info wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Actually, Python treats all NaNs as quiet NaNs and never signalling NaNs.
Sorry, did I get that backwards? I thought it was signalling NANs that cause
a
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2011-04-22 - 2011-04-29)
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:
open2760 ( +8)
closed 20976 (+39)
total 23736 (+47)
Open issues
[Georg]
BTW, didn't we agree not to put pragma comments into the stdlib code?
I'd be grateful for a link to the prior discussion - it must have passed me by
originally, and I searched python-dev on gmane but couldn't find any threads
about this.
[Nick]
I think some folks objected, but since
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
..
And in fact, 0.0/0.0 is covered by the more general rule that x/0.0 raises
ZeroDivisionError, not a rule that converts IEEE-754 INVALID exceptions into
Python exceptions.
It is unfortunate that official text of
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Other aspects of NaN behavior may be a mistake. But it's not clear to
me, even after all the discussion in this thread.
ISTM that the current behavior of NaN (never mind the identity issue)
helps numeric experts
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
… Would it make sense to add
a float context that also lets one specify what should happen? That
could include returning Inf for 1.0/0.0 (for experts), or raising
exceptions when NaNs are produced (for the numerically
On 4/29/2011 3:11 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 4/29/2011 12:09 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
BTW, is there a public place somewhere showing stdlib coverage
statistics? I
looked on the buildbot pages as the likeliest home for them, but
perhaps I
missed them.
I know that the svn repo is now for legacy purposes only, but I doubt it
is intended that the online source browser should raise exceptions.
(See report below.)
All the best,
Michael
Original Message
Subject:viewVC shows traceback on non utf-8 module markup
Date:
Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu writes:
http://coverage.livinglogic.de/
which, however, currently has nothing for *.py.
Perhaps a glitch/bug, as there used to be such.
Anyone who knows the page owner might ask about this.
Thanks for the pointer, nevertheless, Terry.
Regards,
Vinay
Ricardo Kirkner wrote:
I'll give you the example I came upon:
I have a TestCase class, which inherits from both Django's TestCase
and from some custom TestCases that act as mixin classes. So I have
something like
class MyTestCase(TestCase, Mixin1, Mixin2):
...
now django's TestCase class
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:35, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
..
And in fact, 0.0/0.0 is covered by the more general rule that x/0.0 raises
ZeroDivisionError, not a rule that converts
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
If I do x = 0.0/0 I get an exception instead of a NAN.
But the exception you get is ZeroDivisionError, so I think
Python is catching this before you get to the stage of
producing a NaN.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
39 matches
Mail list logo
