I am out of the office until 10/27/2011.
I am out of the office attending the IBM IOD conference. I will be back in
the office on Friday, 10/28. My email responses will be delayed during
that period.
Note: This is an automated response to your message Python-Dev Digest,
Vol 99, Issue 45
On 10/23/11 20:54, petri.lehtinen wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/5c4781a237ef
changeset: 73073:5c4781a237ef
branch: 2.7
parent: 73071:11da12600f5b
user:Petri Lehtinen pe...@digip.org
date:Sun Oct 23 21:52:10 2011 +0300
summary:
Whoops,
Given the issues you are mentioning, and given they were never
reported in years before, it seems unlikely anybody is using these
files.
+1 to remove them, as they don't seem documented either.
-1. If they were broken, and somebody used them, a bug would be
reported. That no bug is being
I don't understand why we kept modules of the plat-* directories (e.g.
Lib/plat-linux/CDROM.py).
Because they are useful. There is no reasonable other way at getting at
the information in the modules for a Python program that may need them.
These modules are not regenerated when Python is
I am still rooting for -fno-builtin-memcmp in both Python 2.7 and 3.3 ...
(after we put memcmp in unicode_compare)
-1. We shouldn't do anything about this. Python has the tradition of not
working around platform bugs, except if the work-arounds are necessary
to make something work at all - i.e.
-1. If they were broken, and somebody used them, a bug would be
reported. That no bug is being reported means that they either
work fine, or nobody uses them.
In the former case, removing them will break somebody's code.
In the latter case, nothing is gained by either keeping or removing
So why remove them?
Not worrying whether we should maintain these files or not would be a
reason. Not worrying whether we should document them (or provide a
better way to access these facilities) is another.
Don't worry whether, I tell you :-) Yes, we maintain them, and no,
we make no
On 23/10/2011 12:27 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
(Sorry, should have gone to the list...)
On 22 October 2011 13:15, Vinay Sajipvinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Nick Coghlanncoghlanat gmail.com writes:
As a simpler alternative, I suggest the launcher just gain a --which
long option that displays
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
How about abusing the existing flags for this purpose - eg:
% py -3?
% py -2.7?
What does using the magic symbol offer over an explicit separate flag?
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com |
On 24/10/2011 10:36 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Mark Hammondskippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
How about abusing the existing flags for this purpose - eg:
% py -3?
% py -2.7?
What does using the magic symbol offer over an explicit separate flag?
* The magic
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
* The magic symbol is somewhat self-documenting - it implies a question.
Using --which adds another special case that people would need to
understand isn't passed to Python. IOW, I like that there is only 1
On 24/10/2011 11:46 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Mark Hammondskippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
* The magic symbol is somewhat self-documenting - it implies a question.
Using --which adds another special case that people would need to
understand isn't passed to
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Mark Hammond
mhamm...@skippinet.com.au wrote:
So I don't actually see any particularly *new* design decisions to be
made in relation to a --which option - it's just a workaround for
the lack of a native 'which' equivalent on Windows,
Actually I don't think
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 17:15, Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
How about abusing the existing flags for this purpose - eg:
% py -3?
% py -2.7?
I would have expected that to launch an interactive python shell of
the appropriate version. Does it do something else today?
Michael
On 24/10/2011 12:56 PM, Michael Urman wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 17:15, Mark Hammondskippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
How about abusing the existing flags for this purpose - eg:
% py -3?
% py -2.7?
I would have expected that to launch an interactive python shell of
the appropriate
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 20:58, Mark Hammond mhamm...@skippinet.com.au wrote:
On 24/10/2011 12:56 PM, Michael Urman wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 17:15, Mark Hammondskippy.hamm...@gmail.com
wrote:
How about abusing the existing flags for this purpose - eg:
% py -3?
% py -2.7?
I would
16 matches
Mail list logo
