New submission from Collin Winter <coll...@gmail.com>: Lib/pickletools.py incorrectly thinks POP_MARK was part of protocol 0; POP_MARK was only added with the introduction of protocol 1 in r7753. This mistake led me down a dead end while fixing another pickling issue.
Alexandre, can you double-check me on this? Feel free to bounce this back if you don't have time. I'll port this to py3k. I'm leaning toward a backport to 2.6; any thoughts on that? ---------- components: Library (Lib) files: pickletools.patch keywords: easy, patch messages: 88105 nosy: alexandre.vassalotti, collinwinter priority: low severity: normal stage: patch review status: open title: POP_MARK was not in pickle protocol 0 type: behavior versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.1 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file14020/pickletools.patch _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6066> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
