On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/27/2011 11:08 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
>> Tell me if I am wrong, but only Marc-Andre is against deprecating
>> StreamReader
>
> While I am, in general, in favor of removing some duplication, I was and am
> against doing this change prec
On 5/27/2011 11:08 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Tell me if I am wrong, but only Marc-Andre is against deprecating StreamReader
While I am, in general, in favor of removing some duplication, I was and
am against doing this change precipitously. So I was for the reversion
(noted), at least tempor
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I'm
happy to announce the release of Python 2.5.6. There were no changes
since the release candidate.
This is a source-only release that only includes security fixes. The
last full bug-fix release of Python 2.5 was Python 2.5.4. Us
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 15:42:10, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
>> If we'd go by your reasoning for deprecating and eventually
>> removing parts of the stdlib or Python's subsystems, we'll end
>> up with a barebone version of Python. That's not what we want
>> and it's not what ou
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2011-05-20 - 2011-05-27)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open2813 (+19)
closed 21165 (+50)
total 23978 (+69)
Open issues wit
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 15:42:10, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
> If we'd go by your reasoning for deprecating and eventually
> removing parts of the stdlib or Python's subsystems, we'll end
> up with a barebone version of Python. That's not what we want
> and it's not what our users want.
I don't want
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 16:01:14, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> > Wrong order: first write a PEP, then discuss, then get approval,
> > then patch.
>
> Indeed.
>
> If another committer says "please revert and better justify this
> change" then w
2011/5/27 Victor Stinner :
> Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 15:33:07, Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
>> 2011/5/27 Victor Stinner :
>> > You have until the release of Python 3.3 to prove that StreamReader
>> > and/or StreamWriter can be faster than TextIOWrapper. If you can prove
>> > it using a patch and a b
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 15:33:07, Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
> 2011/5/27 Victor Stinner :
> > You have until the release of Python 3.3 to prove that StreamReader
> > and/or StreamWriter can be faster than TextIOWrapper. If you can prove
> > it using a patch and a benchmark, I will be ok to revert
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> Wrong order: first write a PEP, then discuss, then get approval,
> then patch.
Indeed.
If another committer says "please revert and better justify this
change" then we revert it. We don't get into commit wars.
Something does need to be
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 10:17:29, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
>> I am still -1 on deprecating the StreamReader/Writer parts of
>> the codec APIs. I've given numerous reasons on why these are
>> useful, what their intention is, why they were added to Python 1.6.
>
> codecs.open(
2011/5/27 Victor Stinner :
> You have until the release of Python 3.3 to prove that StreamReader and/or
> StreamWriter can be faster than TextIOWrapper. If you can prove it using a
> patch and a benchmark, I will be ok to revert my commit.
Please don't hold commits over someone's head.
--
Rega
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011 10:17:29, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
> > I think that the readahead algorithm is much more faster than trying to
> > avoid partial input, and it's not a problem to have partial input if you
> > use an incremental decoder.
>
> Depends on where you're coming from. For non-seekab
So, given the discussions about this change, can you please revert it,
Victor?
Eric.
On 05/26/2011 08:07 AM, victor.stinner wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/7ba176c2f558
> changeset: 70397:7ba176c2f558
> user:Victor Stinner
> date:Thu May 26 13:53:47 2011 +0200
> summa
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le mercredi 25 mai 2011 à 15:43 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
>> For UTF-16 it would e.g. make sense to always read data in blocks
>> with even sizes, removing the trial-and-error decoding and extra
>> buffering currently done by the base classes. For UTF-32, the
>> blocks
15 matches
Mail list logo