Bill Janssen wrote:
> Will this work properly in Python 3K? I tend to use base64, for
> example, to turn byte sequences into safe strings, so I need a way of
> doing "encode" on byte sequences, not just strings.
>
> In general, base64.encode() should operate on byte sequences and
> return string
Anthony Baxter wrote:
> Considerable for the open-source stuff. Windows users, in
> particular, have great difficulty with downloading extensions.
easy_install makes Windows users very happy, though.
> Right now, I don't even know that it's possible to build a binary
> extension without spendi
On Jan 6, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 11:13 AM 1/6/2007 -0800, Tony Lownds wrote:
>
>> On Jan 5, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>>> At 10:53 PM 12/27/2006 -0800, Neal Norwitz wrote:
* With the modification of MAKE_FUNCTION to be a 32-bit value,
this
At 11:13 AM 1/6/2007 -0800, Tony Lownds wrote:
>On Jan 5, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>>At 10:53 PM 12/27/2006 -0800, Neal Norwitz wrote:
>>> * With the modification of MAKE_FUNCTION to be a 32-bit value, this
>>>means that EXTENDED_ARG is now used. This means that the peephole
>>>
On Jan 5, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:53 PM 12/27/2006 -0800, Neal Norwitz wrote:
>> * With the modification of MAKE_FUNCTION to be a 32-bit value, this
>> means that EXTENDED_ARG is now used. This means that the peephole
>> optimizer won't work for the outer function. I th
On Jan 5, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > * With the modification of MAKE_FUNCTION to be a 32-bit value,
>> this
>> > means that EXTENDED_ARG is now used. This means that the peephole
>> > optimizer won't work for the outer
