On Sunday 21 January 2007 05:17, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Neal Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > It's not a question, it's a critique. I believe this is a
> > misfeature since it's so easy to make this mistake.
>
> And it is going away with Py3k. Making it go away for Python 2.6
> w
On 1/20/07, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-01-20 00:01, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On 1/19/07, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 2007-01-19 22:33, Brett Cannon wrote:
> That's a typical error situation you get in __del__ methods at
> the time the interprete
Neal Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> It's not a question, it's a critique. I believe this is a misfeature since
> it's so easy to make this mistake.
And it is going away with Py3k. Making it go away for Python 2.6 would
either allow for two syntaxes to do the same thing, or would req
Georg Brandl wrote:
> Neal Becker schrieb:
>> I accidentally wrote:
>>
>> try:
>> ...
>> except a,b:
>>
>> rather than:
>>
>> try
>> ...
>> except (a,b):
>>
>> It appears that the 1st example syntax is silently accepted, but doesn't
>> seem to work. Is this true? If so, I'd say it's a wart
Neal Becker schrieb:
> I accidentally wrote:
>
> try:
> ...
> except a,b:
>
> rather than:
>
> try
> ...
> except (a,b):
>
> It appears that the 1st example syntax is silently accepted, but doesn't
> seem to work. Is this true? If so, I'd say it's a wart.
Both have a meaning: The first ass
I accidentally wrote:
try:
...
except a,b:
rather than:
try
...
except (a,b):
It appears that the 1st example syntax is silently accepted, but doesn't
seem to work. Is this true? If so, I'd say it's a wart.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@
On 2007-01-20 00:01, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 1/19/07, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2007-01-19 22:33, Brett Cannon wrote:
That's a typical error situation you get in __del__ methods at
the time the interpreter is shut down.
>>> Yeah, but in this case this is at the
Hi Tim,
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:33:23PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
> >>> decimal.Decimal(-1) % decimal.Decimal("1e100")
> Decimal("-1")
BTW - isn't that case in contradiction with the general Python rule that
if b > 0, then a % b should return a number between 0 included and b
excluded? We try
