Changes by Jesús Cea Avión [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
nosy: +jcea
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3487
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Shouldn't there be any unit tests? :)
--
nosy: +pitrou
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3487
___
Barry A. Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Guido, this is fine for 3.0 and 2.6. As Terry points out, it's not user
visible and it improves reliability. I'm -0 on backporting it to 2.5,
but don't really feel strongly about that.
Go for it!
--
assignee: barry - gvanrossum
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Submitted to 2.6 as r65544.
Will propagate to 3.0 as it gets merged -- should be a perfect merge.
Antoine: the re module has tons of unittests; showing that attempts to
break in are thwarted would be pretty boring. ;-)
--
status:
Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
+1 I'd like to see this make it in.
--
nosy: +gregory.p.smith
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3487
___
New submission from Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Attached is a verifier for the binary code used by the _sre module (this
is often called bytecode, though to distinguish it from Python bytecode
I put it in quotes).
I wrote this for Google App Engine, and am making the patch available as
Terry J. Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Based on my understanding of the above and PyDev discussions, I see the
arguments in favor of quick inclusion as being the following:
1. This will be user invisible, so it is not a new interface feature.
2. This will prevent possible
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
3. Google considered this enough of a potential problem to pre-emptively
fix it. Now that that problem has been publicly exposed, other careful
users will expect it to be fixed and will find Python more attractive
when it has been.
If
