On 20 March 2016 at 07:46, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Diagnosing ambiguous conditions, even including my example above, might be
> useful... for a few files... is it worth the effort? What % of .py sources
> have coding specifications? What % of those have two?
And there's a decent argument for lea
On 03/17/2016 04:54 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/16/2016 12:59 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
Actually "must match the regular expression" is not correct, because
re.match() implies anchoring at the start. I have proposed more
correct regular expression in other branch of this thread.
"match
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> On 17.03.16 16:55, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Serhiy Storchaka
>> wrote:
Should we recommend that everyone use tokenize.detect_encoding()?
>>>
>>>
>>> Likely. However the interface of tokenize
On 2016-03-18 05:57, Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev wrote:
Yeah, C99 (6.7.2.1) allows "a qualified or unqualified version of _Bool, signed int, unsigned
int, or some other implementation-defined type", and same for C11. This means that a compiler
could easily allow an implementation-defined ty
Hello!
I'm seeing that our code increases the reference counting to Py_None,
and I find this a little strange: isn't Py_None eternal and will never
die?
What's the point of counting its references?
Thanks!
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 01:43:27PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm seeing that our code increases the reference counting to Py_None,
> and I find this a little strange: isn't Py_None eternal and will never
> die?
>
> What's the point of counting its references?
Avoiding a branch o
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 at 09:44 Facundo Batista
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm seeing that our code increases the reference counting to Py_None,
> and I find this a little strange: isn't Py_None eternal and will never
> die?
>
Semantically yes, but we have to technically make that happen. :)
>
> What's
[Facundo Batista ]
> I'm seeing that our code increases the reference counting to Py_None,
> and I find this a little strange: isn't Py_None eternal and will never
> die?
Yes, but it's immortal in CPython because its reference count never
falls to 0 (it's created with a reference count of 1 to beg
On Mar 20, 2016, at 09:07, Michael Felt wrote:
>
>> On 2016-03-18 05:57, Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev wrote:
>> Yeah, C99 (6.7.2.1) allows "a qualified or unqualified version of _Bool,
>> signed int, unsigned int, or some other implementation-defined type", and
>> same for C11. This means that
On 3/20/2016 4:04 PM, Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev wrote:
Agreed. But I think the test is reasonable on at least MSVC, gcc, clang, and
icc. So what you need is some way to run the test on those compilers, but not
on compilers that can't handle it.
The test could be conditioned on the compil
10 matches
Mail list logo