Guido van Rossum schrieb:
>> When the new buffer protocol is available in 2.6 we can start back
>> porting bytesarray and the new IO framework.
>
> Are these really so closely tied that they have to wait before they
> can be backported?
I've started with the backport of the bytearray type in a
> I think it can actually be simplified. I think maintaining binary
> compatibility between 2.6 and earlier versions is hopeless anyway
ABI-wise or API-wise?
I would surely hope that the 2.6 API is "mostly" compatible with the
2.5 API.
Regards,
Martin
> I haven't been around during the 1.x -> 2.x days. I was still in the
> dark ages (aka PHP user).
:-)
> How do you want me to tackle down the PyString / PyBytes problem?
I think it can actually be simplified. I think maintaining binary
compatibility between 2.6 and earlier versions is hopele
I think this howto is of general interest to the community, but I'm
crossposting to Tracker-Discuss and redirecting discussion there.
Reply-To set.
Barry Warsaw writes:
> Thanks Martin, I think this will work for now. Is there any way you
> can allow me to edit this query too?
While as Mart
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> Right. We've done this 2-stage rename before, during the great
> (sometimes known as grand) renaming, in the 1.x days.
I haven't been around during the 1.x -> 2.x days. I was still in the
dark ages (aka PHP user).
How do you want me to tackle down the PyString / PyByte
In porting Django, I ran into this problem:
Python 3.0a3+ (py3k:61727, Mar 22 2008, 01:44:52)
[GCC 4.2.3 (Debian 4.2.3-1)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
py> import urllib
py> urllib.quote(b"/path")
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 22, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Thanks Martin, I think this will work for now. Is there any way
>> you can allow me to edit this query too?
>
> Not easily.
>
> I could just remove it, and allow you to create a new one (or you
> Thanks Martin, I think this will work for now. Is there any way you can
> allow me to edit this query too?
Not easily.
I could just remove it, and allow you to create a new one (or you create
one yourself, anyway, and I remove mine later).
Regards,
Martin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 17, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> 'critical' is fine (or 'immediate'). My problem before was that I
>> couldn't do one query that gave me all the critical issues for
>> both 2.6 and 3.0. That certainly could have been pebk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 21, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> One thing I really like the idea of with Mercurial for my situation
> (non-committer) is the mq extension, which lets me manage my changes
> as a "stack of patches" - so I'm completely working with pat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 20, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Barry Warsaw schrieb:
>> I'm happy to announce that we now have available for public
>> consumption, the Python source code for 2.5, 2.6 and 3.0 available
>> under the Bazaar distributed version co
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:51 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If there's some chance it would be accepted, I would happily make the
> patch.
>
> I don't think there is. Making it a keyword now means essentially to
> agree that the feature will be added later, so opponents o
Charles Merriam wrote:
> I hate bringing up something that has been hashed over so many times,
> but I'm a bear
> of little brain and am not understanding the migration path. The
> whole use of the "2to3"
> tools seems like an abrupt hack. It is workable, but causes a serious
> plan for near term
13 matches
Mail list logo
