2012/6/10 Alexandre Zani alexandre.z...@gmail.com:
I prefer the flags. Flags means I can just look at the Parameter
object. A type or kind or whatever means I need to compare to a
bunch of constants. That's more stuff to remember.
I don't see why remembering 4 names is any harder than
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2012/6/10 Alexandre Zani alexandre.z...@gmail.com:
I prefer the flags. Flags means I can just look at the Parameter
object. A type or kind or whatever means I need to compare to a
bunch of constants. That's more
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
But what guarantee do you have that (a) the right people sign up for
the new list, and (b) topics are correctly brought up there instead of
on python-dev? I agree that python-dev is turning into a firehose, but
I am
On Friday, June 8, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:06 AM, mar...@v.loewis.de
(mailto:mar...@v.loewis.de) wrote:
I hereby predict that Microsoft will revert this decision, and that VS
Express
11 will be able to build CPython.
And your prediction
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
..
t = mktime((2010, 11, 7, 1, 0, 0, -1, -1, 0))
for i in range(5):
... print(strftime(%T%z, localtime(t + i - 2)))
...
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
But what guarantee do you have that (a) the right people sign up for
the new list, and (b) topics are correctly brought up there instead of
on
Eric Snow ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com writes:
Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
would have been the most effective by far. Of course, the key thing
is how closely the various implementors would follow the new list.
Only they could say, though Frank
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com wrote:
Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
would have been the most effective by far. Of course, the key thing
is how closely the various implementors would follow the new list.
Only they
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
..
t = mktime((2010, 11, 7, 1, 0, 0,
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:01:57 -0700, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Alexander
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
..
Maybe the problem here is the *input*? It should be a POSIX timestamp,
not a datetime object.
No. Seconds since epoch or POSIX timestamp is a foreign data type
to the datetime module. An aware datetime object with
Let's agree to disagree. I don't have the time to argue any more but
you haven't convinced me.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
..
Maybe the problem here is the
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jeff Hardy jdha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
would have been the most effective by far. Of course, the key thing
is
On Jun 11, 2012, at 04:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
1. Asking on python-dev is considered adequate. If an implementation
wants to be consulted on changes, one or more of their developers
*must* follow python-dev sufficiently closely that they don't miss
cross-VM compatibility questions.
That's
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jeff Hardy jdha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Jun 11, 2012, at 04:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
1. Asking on python-dev is considered adequate. If an implementation
wants to be consulted on changes, one or more of their developers
*must* follow python-dev
Alexander Belopolsky alexander.belopol...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Maybe the problem here is the *input*? It should be a POSIX
timestamp, not a datetime object.
No. Seconds since epoch or POSIX timestamp is a foreign data
Brett Cannon writes:
But we already have the various SIGs carry out discussions outside of
python-dev and just bring forward their results to python-dev when they are
ready. Why would this list be any different?
(1) Because AIUI the main problem this list is supposed to solve is
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Asking on python-dev is considered adequate. If an implementation
wants to be consulted on changes, one or more of their developers
*must* follow python-dev sufficiently closely that they don't miss
cross-VM
Hi,
I just created some code to support built-in sub modules.
The naive way I tried first was just to add {Mod.Sub1.Sub2,
init_modsub1sub2} to _PyImport_Inittab. This didn't worked. Maybe it
would be a nice addition so that this works.
Mod itself, in my case, was a package directory with pure
On Monday, June 11, 2012, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Brett Cannon writes:
But we already have the various SIGs carry out discussions outside of
python-dev and just bring forward their results to python-dev when they
are
ready. Why would this list be any different?
(1) Because AIUI
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Albert Zeyer alb...@googlemail.com wrote:
I also searched a bit around and I didn't directly found any easier
way to do this. Only a post from 2009
(http://mail.python.org/pipermail/cplusplus-sig/2009-January/014178.html)
which seems like a much more ugly hack.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Alexander Belopolsky alexander.belopol...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Maybe the problem here is the *input*? It should be a POSIX
timestamp, not a
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
Unambiguous storage of absolute time can be achieved with POSIX
timestamps, but that is certainly not the only nor best way to do
it.
For example, RFC 5322
On 6/11/2012 11:13 PM, fwierzbi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Nick Coghlanncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
2. As 1, but we adopt a subject line convention to make it easier to
filter out general python-dev traffic for those that are just
interested in cross-vm questions
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
This is simple to try and see what happens.
[X] or [XI] for X(cross) implementation.
To allow easier transition to a separate list (if that seems necessary
at a later date), my preferred colour for the bikeshed is
26 matches
Mail list logo
