date:20170202

[issue27744] Add AF_ALG (Linux Kernel crypto) to socket module

2017-02-02 Thread Christian H


Changes by Christian H :


--
nosy: +Christian H

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue29412] IndexError thrown on email.message.Message.get

2017-02-02 Thread Xiang Zhang


Xiang Zhang added the comment:

This seems not related to #27931.

The problem is that the receiver's content is only CFWS. It's just like it's 
empty and for the default policy, it checks `value[0] == '"'` in `get_word`.

--
nosy: +xiang.zhang

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue29428] Doctest documentation unclear about multi-line fixtures

2017-02-02 Thread Jim DeLaHunt

New submission from Jim DeLaHunt:

I just had a problem with doctests. It manifested as an error that occurred
when I did
>>> import StringIO
in my doctest.

After some investigation, I realised that my actual problem was that the
doctest library documentation https://docs.python.org/3/library/doctest.html
left me unclear about three aspects of multi-line doctest fixtures.

1. There is no example of a multiple-line doctest fixture: specifically, a
fixture which involves at least one line to set up state, and another line to
be the example that tested. I suggest adding such an example as a new section,
"26.3.2. Usage: multi-line tests". Note that the example in 26.3.3.2 doesn't
count: that is a Compound Statement, and I'm talking about a test consisting of
multiple interactive statements.

2. Section "26.3.3.2. How are Docstring Examples Recognized?" does not talk
about when to use a PS1 prefix (>>>) and when to use a PS2 prefix (...). It
should say to use the PS1 at the start of each Python "interactive statement",
that is, a statement list ending with a newline, or a Compound Statement. And,
to use the PS2 to prefix each continuing line within a Compound Statement.

3. Section "26.3.3.3. What’s the Execution Context?" is not clear about the
crucial difference between state that accumulates within a single docstring
from Example to Example, and that is reset from one docstring to another. The
phrase "so that one test in M can’t leave behind crumbs that accidentally allow
another test to work" can be interpreted as applying within a single docstring.
The phrase "names defined earlier in the docstring being run" is easy to miss.

A StackOverflow Question and Answer describing my problem and my insight about
what the library documentation didn't tell me is at
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/41070547/why-is-importing-a-module-breaking-my-doctest-python-2-7
. A blog post of mine, a source for documentation improvements, is at
http://blog.jdlh.com/en/2017/01/31/multi-line-doctests/ .

I actually encountered this problem in a Python 2.7 context, with
https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html . But it also applies to Python
3.6 https://docs.python.org/3/library/doctest.html and to the current dev
https://docs.python.org/dev/library/doctest.html . In the spirit of fixing the
new stuff first, I am filing this issue against Python 3.7.

Unless someone tells me otherwise, I'll get around to filing similar issues
against Python 3.6 and Python 2.7.
Then it's my intention to write improvements to the documentation for Python
3.7, 3.6, and 2.7, and submit each of those. It looks like they will be pretty
similar, because the library documentation is pretty similar in each version.

I'm new to Python issue filing and doc fixing, so I would appreciate correction
if (when?) I start to blunder.

--
assignee: docs@python
components: Documentation
messages: 286843
nosy: JDLH, docs@python
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Doctest documentation unclear about multi-line fixtures
type: enhancement
versions: Python 3.7

___
Python tracker

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue29423] using concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor in class giving 'TypeError: can't pickle _thread.RLock objects' in 3.6, but not 3.5

2017-02-02 Thread spencera


spencera added the comment:

Interesting. So, out of curiosity, what has changed from 3.5.2 to 3.6.0 that 
causes this new behavior? Was an instance associated with an instance method 
that was passed to submit not implicitly pickled before 3.6.0? Is it from the 
changes to the pickle module in 3.6? Something else?

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue18842] Add float.is_finite is_nan is_infinite to match Decimal methods

2017-02-02 Thread Mariatta Wijaya


Mariatta Wijaya added the comment:

Martin,

I reviewed the patch (rm-finite.patch) and ran the tests. The patch no longer 
applies cleanly to the default branch, but otherwise looks good. 

Assigning this back to you as per Raymond's suggestion.

Thanks :)

--
assignee: Mariatta -> martin.panter

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue29423] using concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor in class giving 'TypeError: can't pickle _thread.RLock objects' in 3.6, but not 3.5

2017-02-02 Thread Josh Rosenberg


Josh Rosenberg added the comment:

Looks like the problem here is that pickling self._consume implicitly pickles 
self, and after the first submission, self._futures contains Future objects. 
Those are probably what have the RLock in them (to synchronize between reading 
and populating threads), and it's correct not to pickle them; they're only 
meaningful in the parent process, and sending them to the workers would break, 
badly.

Given you don't seem to be using self for anything, you could either make 
_consume a staticmethod (if you need state from self, pass that specific state 
in as arguments) so it's not implicitly pickling and transmitting self, or 
failing that, define custom pickling functions that explicitly exclude 
self._futures from the set of attributes to pickle.

There is nothing to fix behaviorally on Python's side that wouldn't lead to 
confusion/breakage in other code. It would be nice if Python could give more 
detail on pickle chain that led to the unpicklable object (so you know it's 
self._consume->self->self._futures->some future object->future._rlock or 
whatever), but I'm not sure the pickling protocol design can preserve that sort 
of chain for error reporting...

--
nosy: +josh.r

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 146 matches

Mail list logo