Redirecting to python-dev for discussion.
When I invoke subprocess.call(), I often want to ensure that the subprocess'
stdin is closed. This ensures it will die if the subprocess attempts to read
from stdin rather than block.
This could be done if the subprocess.call() helper closes the input if
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > But as long as we are describing the
> > present state we should call a spade a spade, etc.
>
> I guess I take a syntactic view of the status quo, because, while
> lambdas may be implemented as anonymous functions, the current syntax
> doesn'
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 338 open ( +0) / 2866 closed ( +5) / 3204 total ( +5)
Bugs: 914 open ( +5) / 5060 closed (+13) / 5974 total (+18)
RFE : 188 open ( +0) / 170 closed ( +0) / 358 total ( +0)
New / Reopened Patches
__
update th
> It was possible in PEP 340 and in early drafts of PEP 346, but it
> isn't possible in PEP 343.
> In PEP 343, the statement template *cannot* suppress exceptions - it
> can react to them, and it can turn them into different exceptions, but
> that's all.
...doing homework...
The following code,
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Ron Adam wrote:
> It seems to me, that maybe a single "byte_buffer" type, that can be
> defined to the exact needed byte lengths and have possible other
> characteristics to aid in interfacing to other languages or devices,
> would be a better choice.
>
> Then pythons ints, fl
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[two messages mixed]
> Huh? C unsigned ints don't flag overflow either -- they perform
> perfect arithmetic mod 2**32.
I was talking about signed ints. Sorry about the confusion. Other
scripting languages (e.g. perl) do not error on overflow.
>
>> I
[Raymond]
> > The above recommendations should get the PEP ready for judgement
day.
[David Eppstein]
> I thought judgement day already happened for this PEP in the "Parade
of
> PEPs". No?
The parade's text said the main gripe was having the index in the
middle, rather than right after the keywor
Keith Dart wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Keith Dart wrote:
>
>
>>But then I wouldn't know if it overflowed 32 bits. In my usage, the
>>integer will be translated to an unsigned (32 bit) integer in another
>>system (SNMP). I want to know if it will fit, and I want to know early if
>>there will be
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> [Nick Coghlan]
>
>>And here we see why I'm such a fan of the term 'deferred expression'
>>instead of 'anonymous function'.
>>
>>Python's lambda expressions *are* the former, but they are
>>emphatically *not* the latter.
>
> Let me emphatically disagree. Your POV is entir
Paul Du Bois wrote:
> If I understand PEP 343 correctly, it allows for easy implementation
> of part of your request. It doesn't implement the else: clause, but
> you don't give a use case for it either.
>
> class ignored_exceptions(object):
>def __init__(self, *exceptions):
>self.exce
> try:
> c().foo()
> except TypeError:
> pass
> else:
> assert False, "c.foo() should have thrown TypeError"
In fact, the above code actually expects foo to throw
particular exception, not exactly the same as the original
requirement. More of
expect TypeError:
c().foo()
and s
> I suspect that you wanted either:
>try:
>c().foo()
>fail('Should have raised TypeError')
>except TypeError:
>pass # expected
Right, of course I use something along these lines:
try:
c().foo()
except TypeError:
pass
else:
assert False, "c.foo() shoul
Dmitry Dvoinikov writes:
> The reason for that being self-tests with lots and lots of
> little code snippets like this:
>
> try:
> c().foo()
> except TypeError:
> pass
Paul Du Boise already responded explaining that PEP 343 probably handles
the task you want. I just wanted to mention that
On 6/20/05, Keith Dart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, since it is sometimes necessary to interface to other systems
> with Python, I see no reason why Python should not have a full set of
> built in numeric types corresponding to the machine types and, in turn,
> other system types. Then it
On 6/20/05, Keith Dart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...]
> > By far the easiest way to do arithmetic mod 2**32 is to just add "&
> > 0x" to the end of your expression. For example, simulating the
> > effect of multiplying an unsigned long by 3 w
Keith Dart wrote:
> I guess I just clarify this more. My "unsigned" type really is an object
> that represents a type of number from the external system. Previously,
> there was a nice, clean mapping between external types and Python types.
> Now there is not so clean a mapping. Not that that makes
16 matches
Mail list logo
