Brett Cannon schrieb:
> It doesn't need to, it just would have been convenient and consistent.
> It seems odd that C code can compare an exception against other
> objects that an 'except' clause won't.
If you look at the C code, you find that there are very few callers
to GivenExceptionMatches (e
If someone is alread working at this, please ignore this mail: I just
picked because it was ease enough not to do while I wait some other
code to run at work.
I've created two patches to p3yk. They are two alternatives to fix the
broken test_dict.py:
test_dict_1.patch uses the same approach as tes
Thanks! I decided to use your first approach; one can never have too
many unit tests! :-)
On 2/14/07, Eduardo EdCrypt O. Padoan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If someone is alread working at this, please ignore this mail: I just
> picked because it was ease enough not to do while I wait some other
>
On 2/14/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett Cannon schrieb:
> > It doesn't need to, it just would have been convenient and consistent.
> > It seems odd that C code can compare an exception against other
> > objects that an 'except' clause won't.
>
> If you look at the C code,
On 2/14/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Chris Rebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Requesting comments on the following pre-PEP. pybench runs both with and
> > without the patch applied would also be appreciated.
> > - Chris R
>
> One Glyph Lefkowitz posted today [1] in response
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> I have many, MANY times written bugged code like this:
>
> def something(x = None):
> if not x:
> x = 42 # <- Oh noe!
You can get exactly the same bug in many other contexts
besides default arguments. It's something you need to
be on the alert
"BJörn Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Chris Rebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Requesting comments on the following pre-PEP. pybench runs both with and
> > > without the patch applied would also be appreciated.
> > > - Chris R
Nobody has asked me yet, but I'm not going to support this PEP. it's
too big a departure from existing semantics. Next are we going to turn
class variables initialized with expressions into automatic instance
variable initializers implicitly executed in the __init__ code?
Newbies are just as likely
Mike Klaas wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Chris Rebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This PEP proposes new semantics for default arguments to remove
>> boilerplate code associated with non-constant default argument
>> values,
>> allowing them to be expressed more clearly and succinctly.
>> Sp
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> "BJörn Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2/14/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Chris Rebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Requesting comments on the following pre-PEP. pybench runs both with and
without the patch applied would also be apprec
I tried to fix a few more unit tests tonight that had started failing
after the introduction of dict views. Looking over UserDict.py, it's
clear that this module needs more work -- while I banged it into
submission with minimal effort, it would reallly make a lot more sense
to redesign UserDict and
I just noticed that my Thunderbird marked the posting
with this PEP in it as spam. Not sure what that says
about the proposal...
--
Greg
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
12 matches
Mail list logo
