On 1/10/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the p3yk branch, test_hotshot seems to be failing. Does anybody
have any idea why? Is this an artefact of the latest merge? (BTW
thanks for doing another merge, Thomas -- it's greatly appreciated!)
No tests were failing for me, after
At 10:00 PM 1/9/2007 -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>I know that one of the points of all of this is so that the name that
>the exc_info() stuff gets in the local scope doesn't propagate past the
>except clause,
That is the *entire* point of this, actualy. :) (Well, the "as" change
was supposed t
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> On 1/9/07, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Hey! What's this about __cmp__?!
>
> Python 3.0x (p3yk:53295, Jan 8 2007, 09:32:17)
> [GCC 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" fo
Hm, then maybe it started failing after I applied Collin Winter's
'except' patches. Collin, does test_hotshot pass or fail for you, with
or without your patches?
On 1/10/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 1/10/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the p3yk bran
On 1/9/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that one of the points of all of this is so that the name that
> the exc_info() stuff gets in the local scope doesn't propagate past the
> except clause, but I can't help feeling as if removing the name isn't a
> little overenthusiastic.
On 1/9/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, since this is an Open Issue and slightly controversial I need
> explicit voting from people on whether they like any of the proposed
> packages. So please don't be silent if there is a package you think
> that should (or should not) happ
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/9/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know that one of the points of all of this is so that the name that
> > the exc_info() stuff gets in the local scope doesn't propagate past the
> > except clause, but I can't help feeling
> I already have that package but without the subpackging which I am not
> going to do. As I said, I am not going to push for anything more than
> a shallow (i.e., one level deep) package introduction.
> I am not dealing with any merging unless I have to. Perhaps I should
> make that a basic rul
Did the import magic number get changed? That was the cause of my
last crash in test_hotshot (not related to this though).
n
On 1/10/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, then maybe it started failing after I applied Collin Winter's
> 'except' patches. Collin, does test_hotshot p
> > * XML-RPC
>
> > + DocXMLRPCServer
> > + SimpleXMLRPCServer
> > + xmlrpclib
>
> Somehow, this grouping seems artificial. I also wonder whether the
> Doc server ought to go in a docs package, or the debug package. That
> said, I still like it better than no change.
How about putting th
"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:00 PM 1/9/2007 -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote:
[snip]
> Please provide what you'd put in the reference manual as an explanation of
> this behavior. (Remember: if the implementation is hard to explain...)
If the name to the right of the 'as' keywo
Well, now I have to delurk.
I've been watching with growing excitement. Between the changes to
the scope rules for list comprehensions, and this change for except
blocks, I wondered if Python might have been moving in the direction
of block scoped variables where appropriate as a philosophy.
I a
"Greg Falcon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I'm coming from a philosophy, though, that believes any time a
> syntactic construct creates a local binding and a new suite to use it
> in, the binding shouldn't escape that suite. Yes, I'm really talking
> about 'for', and I know this is probabl
Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > * XML-RPC
> >
> > > + DocXMLRPCServer
> > > + SimpleXMLRPCServer
> > > + xmlrpclib
> >
> > Somehow, this grouping seems artificial. I also wonder whether the
> > Doc server ought to go in a docs package, or the debug package. That
> > said
On 1/10/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to the translation rules Colin has previously provided...
Phillip came up the translation, I just implemented it.
> re = get_resource()
> ...
> try:
> something()
> except RareException as re:
> ...
At 07:47 AM 1/10/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>BTW perhaps we should add the same semantics and syntax to 'with expr
>as var'? I can't think of a reasonable use case
[snip]
>... for using anything
>more complex than a local variable, BTW.)
with multi(ctx1, ctx2, ...) as var1, var2, ...:
(
On 1/10/07, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did the import magic number get changed? That was the cause of my
last crash in test_hotshot (not related to this though).
I don't think so (at least, I didn't change it).
On 1/10/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, then m
On 1/10/07, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am not dealing with any merging unless I have to. Perhaps I should
> > make that a basic rule that I am not handling merges into a package
> > and that can be done separately.
> Then I don't see the point of re-organizing at all. Just dr
On 1/10/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to the translation rules Colin has previously provided...
>
> re = get_resource()
> ...
> try:
> something()
> except RareException as re:
> ...
> ...
> re.use_resource()
>
> is translated into
On 1/10/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phillip came up the translation, I just implemented it. ...
> re = get_resource()
...
> except RareException as re:
...
> re.use_resource()
> So 're = None; del re;' is *only* executed if the except body is executed.
So re.use_re
At 12:05 PM 1/10/2007 -0500, Greg Falcon wrote:
>I'm coming from a philosophy, though, that believes any time a
>syntactic construct creates a local binding and a new suite to use it
>in, the binding shouldn't escape that suite. Yes, I'm really talking
>about 'for', and I know this is probably a c
> Also, from what I understand, XML-RPC is a specialized web
> server, so the two Servers might fit within the http server package, and
> xmlrpclib fitting with the http client stuff.
Bill
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.p
Jim Jewett says:
> If you want to combine modules, or move code to a more appropriate
> place, that might be good too, but it isn't in Brett's scope. All he
> is doing is
>
> (1) Getting rid of stuff that has already been replaced, and
> (2) (Maybe) moving modules closer together so that it wil
On 1/10/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > re = get_resource()
> ...
> > except RareException as re:
> ...
> > re.use_resource()
>
> > So 're = None; del re;' is *only* executed if the except body is executed.
>
> So re.u
Some very good points made here.
On 1/10/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, I like reusing the variable names bound in a for loop. And unless
> we are going to attempt to simplify the in...
>
> for in ...:
> ...
>
> to only be a bare name, and not things like 'i,
"Greg Falcon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Per these rules:
> On 1/7/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 1/4/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > except ExcType, e:
> > > > try:
> > > > # body
> > > > finally:
> > >
On 1/10/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Did the import magic number get changed? That was the cause of my
> > last crash in test_hotshot (not related to this though).
>
> I don't think so (at least, I didn't change it).
Actual
On 1/10/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/10/07, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Did the import magic number get changed? That was the cause of my
> > > last crash in test_hotshot (not related to this thoug
On 1/10/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/10/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 1/10/07, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Did the import magic number get changed? That was the cause o
On 1/10/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It passes there too now, but I'm confused as to whether the magic
> > number shuold be changed. Since not too many people ought to be
> > affected I'm tempted to forget about the whole episode...
>
> I thought the magic number was only suppos
On 1/9/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Databases
> > + anydbm
> > + dbhash
> > + dbm
> > + bsddb
> > + dumbdbm
> > + gdbm
> > + whichdb
>
> What about sqlite3?
>
Oops. =)
>
> > * Internet (leaving out all questionabl
On 1/10/07, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Jewett says:
> > If you want to combine modules, or move code to a more appropriate
> > place, that might be good too, but it isn't in Brett's scope. All he
> > is doing is
> >
> > (1) Getting rid of stuff that has already been replaced, a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> * Internet (leaving out all questionable modules leads to a Web
>>> grouping)
>>
>> I'm not a real big fan of the Internet package, but you forgot about
>> smtpd (an asyncore subclass that is an s
Hoi,
> gmane workaround
What drives me nuts personally is the default __repr__ of classes. (type
instances and not class instances).
Currently it looks like this::
>>> Foo
>>> mymodule.Foo
IMHO a better way is this one:
>>> Foo
Foo
>>> mymodule.Foo
mymodule.F
On 1/10/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It passes there too now, but I'm confused as to whether the magic
> > > number shuold be changed. Since not too many people ought to be
> > > affected I'm tempted to forget about the
"Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/9/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > * Internet (leaving out all questionable modules leads to a Web
> > > grouping)
> >
> > I'm not a real big fan of the Internet package, but you for
> Two other quick things: I have an adaptation of smtpd.py that
> provides LMTP support (RFC 2033) that might make it into Python 2.6.
> Also, I'd really love it if the top level 'email' package name was
> reserved for the current code.
Agreed.
- Josiah
_
As the refactoring tool for the 2 to 3 transition was mentioned some time ago
on this list I hope that this is the correct list to post questions about the
tool. I apologize if this isn't, of course.
My questions are entirely concerned with the pattern matching syntax. The
problem is, it would
On 1/10/07, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Jewett says:
> > (2) (Maybe) moving modules closer together so that it will be easier
> > to see what refactoring is needed.
> > Eliminating some additional modules afterwards would be good too, but
> > there may not be time, and step (2
On 1/10/07, Brian L. Troutwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the refactoring tool for the 2 to 3 transition was mentioned some time ago
> on this list I hope that this is the correct list to post questions about the
> tool. I apologize if this isn't, of course.
>
> My questions are entirely conce
> It depends. I'm trying hard to stay out of this thread, but smtpd.py
> is more of a server that speaks a protocol that happens to be used
> sometimes for email. I really don't know where best to put
> it, but another alternative is to have a 'protocols' package perhaps
> with client an
> Otherwise I am removing the Open Issue and I will
> leave it up to someone else to write up a PEP and pitch it to the list
> and Guido.
That would be my recommendation.
Bill
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/ma
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
> cc'ing python-dev - followups should probably go there, rather than
> the p3yk list.
>
> So here's my latest plan:
[...]
> Comments? What else should get warnings?
Previously, there was some talk about making these warnings guarded by
#ifs. Is that still an option?
I
On Thursday 11 January 2007 06:32, Georg Brandl wrote:
> I guess there are quite a few people who won't start moving to
> Python 3.0 with 2.6, or even when 3.1 is out, as long as their
> program works fine with the 2.x line. There's no need to punish
> them with extra overhead.
Checking a single C
44 matches
Mail list logo
