The argument is that a very important, if small, subset a data manipulation
become very painful in Py3. Not impossible, and not difficult, but painful
because the mental model and the contortions needed to get things to work
don't sync up anymore.
You are confused. Please see my reply to
Chris didn't say bytes and ascii data, he said bytes and TEXT.
Text != ascii data, and the fact that some people apparently think it
does is pretty much the heart of the problem.
The heart of a different problem, not this one. The problem I refer to is
that many binary formats have
http://blog.startifact.com/posts/python-2-gravity.html
A Way Forward - How to go forward then? I think it makes sense to work as
hard as possible to lift those Python 2 codebases out of the gravity well.
I think this is complete nonsense. There's only been five years since the
first
Looks like another bad batch, time to change your dealer again.
??? Strange, when the debate hits bottom, accusations about doing
drugs come up. This is like the third reference (and I don't even
drink alcohol).
mark
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Really? If people are using binary with well-defined ascii-encoded
tidbits, they're doing something wrong. Perhaps you think escape
characters \n are well defined tidbits, but YOU WOULD BE WRONG.
The purpose of binary is to keep things raw. WTF?
If you want to participate in this
Really? If people are using binary with well-defined ascii-encoded
tidbits, they're doing something wrong. Perhaps you think escape
characters \n are well defined tidbits, but YOU WOULD BE WRONG.
The purpose of binary is to keep things raw. WTF?
If you want to participate in this
I would still point out that Kenneth and Armin are not the whole Python
community.
I never said they were the whole community, of course. But they are not
outliers either. [...]
Your whole argument seems to be that a couple revered (!!)
individuals should see their complaints taken for
Most of the complaints about Py3 are it's harder to get something
started (or port from Py2). My answer is that it's easier to get
something finished.
I like all of this logic, it makes sense to me. But Armin and Kenneth have
more experience than I do actually writing networking software.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:21:06 -0800, Mark Janssen wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
class object
| The most *base* type
[[Terry Reedy:]]
How about something like.
The default
help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
'''The default top superclass for all Python classes.
Its methods are inherited by all classes unless overriden.
'''
The root class for all Python classes. Its methods are inherited by
all
What methods, if any does it provide? Are they all abstract? etc???
Pretty much nothing useful :-)
py dir(object)
[...]
So (prodding the student), Why does everything inherit from Object if
it provides no functionality?
Practicality-beats-purity-yours?
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com
wrote:
(Note bene: as a comparison, C++ is very UNAMBIGUOUS about
this fact -- all objects inherit from concrete machine types, which is
why
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
class object
| The most *base* type
[[Terry Reedy:]]
How about something like.
The default top *superclass* for all Python classes.
How 'bout you fools just admit that you didn't realize you've been
confused this whole time? (It *is* possible
Hi, I can't figure out how I can extend the 'function' built-in class. I
tried:
class test(function):
def test(self):
print(test)
but I get an error. Is it possible ?
It has to do with differing models of computation, and python isn't
designed for this. Perhaps you're
Think they just needed a starting point really to be honest as they can't get
there head round it.
Then the problem is that your friend doesn't understand one or more of
the words being used. This is s necessary prerequisite for making an
algorithm from a text description. Perhaps they don't
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:39:27 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
denormalizes it into a lookup table by creating 70 entries quoting the
A little late, but a couple of cents worth more data:
I've just got a few thoughts I'd like to share and ask about:
* Why not allow floater=float(int1/int2) - rather than floater=float
(int1)/float(int2)?
This has to do with evaluation order, the stuff inside the parens gets
evaluated first,
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on where the field of computer
languages is heading, and how that affects the choice of languages for
building web sites.
Well, there aren't that many groupings towards which languages
specialize for (not including embedded or other
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
So, on what basis _would_ you choose a language for some purpose?
Without speaking specifically of web development here, how do you
choose a language?
Most generally, you choose a language informed by the language
Well let me try to explain why it is working and i have implemented one.
I only need to refresh my memory it was almost 15 years ago.
This is not the solution but this is why it is working.
65536=256^2=16^4=***4^8***=2^16
All of those values are indeed the same, and yet that is completely
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM, jonas.thornv...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess what matter is how fast an algorithm can encode and decode a big
number, at least if you want to use it for very big sets of random data, or
I am not sure if it is just stupidness or laziness that prevent you from
seeing that 4^8=65536.
I can see that 4^8 = 65536. Now how are you going to render 65537? You
claimed that you could render *any* number efficiently. What you've
proven is that a small subset of numbers can be rendered
Congratulations Jonas. My kill file for this list used to have only one
name, but now has 2.
You have more patience than I! Jonas just made mine seven. :)
Gosh, don't kill the guy. It's not an obvious thing to hardly anyone
but computer scientists. It's an easy mistake to make.
--
Note that I *can* make a compression algorithm that takes any
length-n sequence and compresses all but one sequence by at least one
bit, and does not ever expand the data.
00 -
01 - 0
10 - 1
11 - 00
This, obviously, is just 'cause the length is an extra piece of data,
but sometimes you
)...))
and eventually the result get down to a single bit. I hope it is clear
that there's no way to restore a single bit back into different source
texts.
Hey, that's a nice proof!
Cheers,
Mark Janssen
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:21 AM, jonas.thornv...@gmail.com wrote:
I am searching for the program or algorithm that makes the best possible of
completly (diffused data/random noise) and wonder what the state of art
compression is.
Is this an April Fool's Joke? A key idea of completely
the homework of
computer science. Ask him.
Otherwise, most of this, while sloppy, still stands.
Mark Janssen
Tacoma, Washington
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[Getting back to some old comments]
A language specification in BNF is just syntax. It doesn't say anything
about semantics. So how could this be used to produce executable C code
for a program? BNF is used to produce parsers. But a parser isn't
sufficient.
A C program is just syntax
Apologies will be accepted on the list.
BTW, I can't resist pointing out that you guys are like a cup already
full of (black) coffee -- too full to allow the pure water of clarity
to enter.
(cf. Buddhism) .. (boom)
MarkJanssen
Tacoma, Washington
--
What a mess of a discussion.
I see the big man stepping in to answer for his homies, but while his
explanation satisfies their question of well why do these magic
values get used then, if what Mark says is true?, it doesn't address
the real confusion: What is the difference between script code
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 22/10/2013 18:37, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
Is this some kind of joke? What has
OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
Is this some kind of joke? What has this list become?
It's a useful debugging technique to initialize memory to distinctive values
that should never occur in
OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
Is this some kind of joke? What has this list become?
It's a useful debugging technique to initialize memory to distinctive
values that should never occur in
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:15:43 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Clearly the python list has been taken over by TheKooks. Notice he
did not respond to the request. Since we are talking about digital
computers (with digital
to anything but 0 -- UNLESS you're from Stupid
University.
Thanks for providing fodder...
Mark Janssen, Ph.D.
Tacoma, WA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
As for the hex value for Nan who really gives a toss? The whole point is
that you initialise to something that you do not expect to see. Do you
not have a text book that explains this concept?
No, I don't think there is a textbook that explains such a concept of
initializing memory to
We've been discussing *DEBUGGING*.
Are you making it LOUD and *clear* that you don't know what you're
talking about?
Input: Yes/no
no
Now please explain what you do not understand about the data below that's
been written by Oscar Benjamin, myself and Ned Batchelder, specifically the
But OTOH, it can also be explained away entirely by (as you previously
noted) the Dunning-Kruger effect, with the same uninformed responses
trotted out to everything.
It was rusi who first mentioned this, I merely replied in my normal dead pan
way.
Slight aside, I spelt your surname
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
(Offlist)
Mark, these conversations would go much more smoothly if you would make
direct statements about technical points. Your messages are usually
insinuating questions, or personal insults.
Yes, thank you.
claim parses).
So which of you is confused? I ask that in the inclusive (not
exclusive OR) sense ;^) -- face says both.
Mark Janssen
Tacoma, Washington.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
So which of you is confused? I ask that in the inclusive (not
exclusive OR) sense ;^) -- face says both.
Could you please be less snarky? We're trying to communicate here, and it
is not at all clear yet who is confused and who is not. If you are
interested in discussing technical
So which of you is confused? I ask that in the inclusive (not
exclusive OR) sense ;^) -- face says both.
Could you please be less snarky?
Okay. The purpose of BNF (at least as I envision it) is to
produce/specify a *context-free* grammar. A lexer parses the tokens
specified in the
Okay. The purpose of BNF (at least as I envision it) is to
produce/specify a *context-free* grammar. A lexer parses the tokens
specified in the BNF into an Abstract Syntax Tree. If one can produce
such a tree for any given source, the language, in theory, can be
compiled by GCC into an
Is your language Turing complete?
1) No, it's not.
2) So what? That should make it easier to compile to C, if anything.
3) Don't change the subject.
Well, if your language is not Turing complete, it is not clear that
you will be able to compile it at all. That's the difference between
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 20:35:03 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
[Attribution to the original post has been lost]
Is a jit implementation of a language (not just python) better than
traditional ahead of time compilation
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Philip Herron
herron.phi...@googlemail.com wrote:
Thanks, i've been working on this basically on my own 95% of the compiler is
all my code, in my spare time. Its been fairly scary all of this for me. I
personally find this as a real source of interest to
No its not like those 'compilers' i dont really agree with a compiler
generating C/C++ and saying its producing native code. I dont really believe
its truely within the statement. Compilers that do that tend to put in alot
of type saftey code and debugging internals at a high level to get
A language specification in BNF is just syntax. It doesn't say anything
about semantics. So how could this be used to produce executable C code
for a program? BNF is used to produce parsers. But a parser isn't
sufficient.
A C program is just syntax also. How does the compiler generate
Gccpy is an Ahead of time implementation of Python ontop of GCC. So it
works as you would expect with a traditional compiler such as GCC to
compile C code. Or G++ to compile C++ etc.
That is amazing. I was just talking about how someone should make a
front-end to GCC on this list a couple of
Prior to that [the '70s] you have punch cards where there's no meaningful
definition of parsing because there are no tokens.
I have no idea what you mean by this. [...]
You seem drawn to sweeping statements about the current state and history of
computer science, but then make claims like
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not having the same thoughts, yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such terminology
and not have these sloppy
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 10/17/2013 01:57 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
Read and listen more. Write and say less.
Mark Janssen has no interest in learning. From a thread long-ago:
Mark Janssen wrote:
Ethan Furman wrote:
Mark Janssen
It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that point,
I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.
Why stop there? If you go back far enough, you've got Babbage with his
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 2013-10-15, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, well 40 years ago they didn't have parsers.
That seems an odd thing to say. People were assembling and compiling
computer programs long before 1973
Types on the other hand correspond to our classifications and so are
things in our minds.
That is not how a C programmer views it. They have explicit
typedefs that make it a thing for the computer.
Speaking as a C programmer, no. We have explicit typedefs to create new
labels for
Who uses object abstraction in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
If not, Linux, how about Python?
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects
Or huge slabs of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, which is entirely
object oriented and mostly C. It's done with SOM, so it's
And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago. Your input is rubbish.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
Objects in programming languages (or 'values' if one is more functional
programming oriented) correspond to things in the world.
One of the things you're saying there is that values correspond to
things in the world. But you will not get agreement in computer
science on that anymore than
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
On 10/12/2013 3:37 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Peter Cacioppi
peter.cacio...@gmail.com wrote:
Along with batteries included and we're all adults, I think
Python needs a pithy phrase
Python objects have dynamic operations suited
to a naive interpreter like CPython.
Naive, no.
Naive, in this instance, means executing code exactly as written,
without optimizing things (and it's not an insult, btw).
In that case, you're talking about a non-optimizing interpreter, but
I don't have an infinite stack to implement
lambda calculus, but...
And then
But this is not a useful formalism. Any particular Program implements
a DFA, even as it runs on a TM. The issue of whether than TM is
finite or not can be dismissed because a simple calculation can
usually
That's fine. My point was: you can't at the same time have full
dynamicity *and* procedural optimizations (like tail call opt).
Everybody should be clear about the trade-off.
Your wrong. Full dynamics is not in contradiction with tail call
optimisation. Scheme has already done it for years.
Only that you've got a consistent, stable (and therefore,
formalizable) translation from your language to the machine. That's
all. Everything else is magic. Do you know that the Warren
Abstraction Engine used to power the predicate logic in Prolog into
machien code for a VonNeumann machine
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 15:47:26 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
I challenge you to get
down to the machine code in scheme and formally describe how it's doing
both.
For which machine?
Right, I should stop
But even putting that aside, even if somebody wrote such a description,
it would be reductionism gone mad. What possible light on the problem
would be shined by a long, long list of machine code operations, even
if written using assembly mnemonics?
Only that you've got a consistent, stable
Yeah, and this is where two models of computation have been conflated,
creating magical effects, confusing everybody. I challenge you to get
down to the machine code in scheme and formally describe how it's
doing both.
Which two models of computation are you talking about? And what magica;
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:54:10 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Now, one can easily argue that I've gone too far to say no one has
understood it (obviously), so it's very little tongue-in-cheek, but
really, when one tries to pretend that one model of computation can be
substituted for another
def fact(n): return 1 if n = 1 else n * fact(n-1)
into a tail recursion like
[...]
How do know that either = or * didn't rebind the name fact to
something else? I think that's the main reason why python cannot apply
any procedural optimization (even things like inlining are impossible,
or
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Alain Ketterlin al...@unistra.fr wrote:
On 10/02/2013 08:59 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
def fact(n): return 1 if n = 1 else n * fact(n-1)
How do know that either = or * didn't rebind the name fact to
something else? I think that's the main reason why python cannot
Part of the reason that Python does not do tail call optimization is
that turning tail recursion into while iteration is almost trivial, once
you know the secret of the two easy steps. Here it is.
That should be a reason it _does_ do it - saying people should rewrite
their functions with
I started Python 4 months ago. Largely self-study with use of Python
documentation, stackoverflow and google. I was thinking what is the minimum
that I must know before I can say that I know Python?
Interesting. I would say that you must know the keywords, how to make
a Class, how to write
into making an equivocation
of sorts. It's subtle and no one in the field has noticed it. It crept
in slowly and imperceptively.
Ah, and now we come to the heart of the matter -- people have been
drawing tree-structures with the root at the top of the page for
centuries, and Mark Janssen
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Evangelical vicar in want of a portable second-hand font. Would
dispose, for the same, of a portrait, in frame, of the Bishop-elect of
Vermont.
I think you could quite easily reconstruct the formatting of that,
based on
Really? Are you saying you (and the community at-large) always derive
from Object as your base class?
Not directly, that would be silly.
Silly? Explicit is better than implicit... right?
But wait is it the base (at the bottom of the hierarchy) or is it the
parent at the top? You see,
* Imports are fiendishly complex, hidden below deceptively simple
syntax.
It's a reasonable expectation that one can import a module from a
source code file given its path on the filesystem, but this turns out
to be much more complicated than in many other languages.
Why is this so
1) It tried to make Object the parent of every class. No one's close
enough to God to make that work.
2) It didn't make dicts inherit from sets when they were added to Python.
3) It used the set literal for dict, so that there's no obvious way to
do it. This didn't get changed in Py3k.
4?) It
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Ben Finney wrote:
The sooner we replace the erroneous
“text is ASCII” in the common wisdom with “text is Unicode”, the
better.
I'd actually argue that it's better to replace the common wisdom with
text is binary data, and we should normally look at that text
Why is this so difficult?
Add a Graph class to the collections module (networkx is quite good)
and simply check for circular imports.
Er? That doesn't address the task of importing a module from a source
code file given its path on the filesystem.
That's true, I guess was hooked on Python's
Unicode is not 16-bit any more than ASCII is 8-bit. And you used the
word encod[e], which is the standard way to turn Unicode into bytes
anyway. No, a Unicode string is a series of codepoints - it's most
similar to a list of ints than to a stream of bytes.
Okay, now you're in blah, blah land.
1) It tried to make Object the parent of every class.
Tried, and succeeded.
Really? Are you saying you (and the community at-large) always derive
from Object as your base class?
No one's close enough to God to make that work.
Non-sequitor. One doesn't need to be close to a deity to have a
A user was wondering why they can't change a docstring in a module's class.
This made me think: why not have a casting operator (reciprocal?) to
transform a bonafide class into a mere carcass of a class which can
then modified and reanimated back into its own type with the type
function? Such
I have this innocent and simple code:
from collections import deque
exhaust_iter = deque(maxlen=0).extend
exhaust_iter.__doc__ = Exhaust an iterator efficiently without
caching any of its yielded values.
Obviously it does not work. Is there a way to get it to work simply
and without
Hi all, this seems to be quite stupid question but I am confused..
We set the initial value to 0, +1 for up-vote and -1 for down-vote! nice.
I have a list of bool values True, False (True for up vote, False for
down-vote).. submitted by users.
should I take True = +1, False=0 [or] True =
On 26/06/2013 9:19 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Did you ever hear of the Glass Bead Game?
Which was Hesse's condemnation of the
pure-academic-understanding-unbound-by-pragmatic-use approach as mental
masturbation,
It was not. He was conflicted. On the one hand he knew the
enterprise was noble
This bothers me as well. If you look at Raymond Hettinger's super()
considered super article, he includes the (correct) advice that
super() needs to be used at every level of the call chain. At the end
of the article, he offers this example to show how easy multiple
inheritance can be:
So instead of super(), you would have sub()? It's an interesting
concept, but I don't think it changes anything. You still have to
design your classes cooperatively if you expect to use them with
multiple inheritance.
Yes, and let new instances of the child classes automatically ensure
the
The main problem is getting to the top/end of the call chain. Classic
example is with __init__, but the same problem can also happen with
other calls. Just a crazy theory, but would it be possible to
construct a black-holing object that, for any given method name,
returns a dummy function
Sorry my last message got sent prematurely. Retrying...
So instead of super(), you would have sub()? It's an interesting
concept, but I don't think it changes anything. You still have to
design your classes cooperatively if you expect to use them with
multiple inheritance.
Yes, and let
Combining integers with sets I can make
a Rational class and have infinite-precision arithmetic, for example.
Combining two integers lets you make a Rational.
Ah, but what is going to group them together? You see you've already
gotten seduced. Python already uses a set to group them
Here's how it *should* be made: the most superest, most badassed
object should take care of its children. New instances should
automatically call up the super chain (and not leave it up to the
subclasses), so that the parent classes can take care of the chil'en.
When something goes wrong
Combining two integers lets you make a Rational.
Ah, but what is going to group them together? You see you've already
gotten seduced. Python already uses a set to group them together --
it's called a Dict and it's in every Class object.
When you inherit a set to make a Rational, you're
Mostly I'm saying that super() is badly named.
What else would you call a function that does lookups on the current
object's superclasses?
^. You make a symbol for it. ^__init__(foo, bar)
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/06/2013 3:43 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
There was a recent discussion about this (under implicit string
concatenation). It seems this is a part of the python language
specification that was simply undefined.
It's part
Also remember when entering long lines of text that strings concatenate
within parenthesis.
So,
(a, b, c
d, e, f
g, h, i)
Is the same as (a, b, cd, e, fg, h, i)
There was a recent discussion about this (under implicit string
concatenation). It seems this is a part of the python language
Whats the difference of interpreting to compiling ?
OK, I give up!
Actually, that's a more subtle question than most people think. Python,
for example, is a compiled language. (What did you think the c in
.pyc files stood for? and the compile() function?)
Careful there. This terminology
Despite not want to RTFM as you say, you might set him in front of
VPython, type
I totally forgot PyGame -- another likely source of self-motivated
learning for a teen programmer.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
list = []
Reading further, one sees that the function works with two lists, a list of
file names, unfortunately called 'list',
That is very good advice in general: never choose a variable name
that is a keyword.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of
the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other?
A license emerges out of the commercial domain is purely about
commercial protections.
I should clarify, that commercial protections here means
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 2013-06-11, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
list = []
Reading further, one sees that the function works with two lists, a list of
file names, unfortunately called 'list',
That is very good
You're right. I was being sloppy.
['ArithmeticError', 'AssertionError', 'AttributeError',
'BaseException', 'BlockingIOError', 'BrokenPipeError', 'BufferError',
'BytesWarning', 'ChildProcessError', 'ConnectionAbortedError',
'ConnectionError', 'ConnectionRefusedError', 'ConnectionResetError',
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
