2009/10/28 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
skip at pobox.com writes:
So 2.7 support will for the most part be a case not of supporting
Python versions, but Python *users*.
Antoine That's still not a good reason to backport nonlocal. The same
Antoine reasoning could be
Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/28 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
skip at pobox.com writes:
So 2.7 support will for the most part be a case not of supporting
Python versions, but Python *users*.
Antoine That's still not a good reason to backport nonlocal. The same
Steve Holden holdenweb at gmail.com writes:
I just wondered, with the recent flood of new MSDN subscriptions loosed
on the developer community, how many people have installed the required
version of Visual Studio and built Python for Windows from source? Not
being that familiar with the
Hello,
What do you think of creating a buildbot category in the tracker? There are
often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track, but there's
nowhere to do so.
Regards
Antoine.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
If it's just a matter of building and testing it you don't need any MSDN
subscription, you just need Visual Studio Express which is free (as in
free beer...). I don't know if it allows you to build an installer
though.
Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
It does. If I recall correctly, in addition to Visual Studio Express, I
also needed the Windows SDK (which is also free as in beer).
The VS 2008 Express Edition is sufficient to build X86 binaries on
Windows. The express edition doesn't support X64_86. though.
What do you think of creating a buildbot category in the tracker? There are
often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track, but there's
nowhere to do so.
Do you have any specific reports that you would want to classify with
this category?
Regards,
Martin
Hello,
I would like to ask a few questions and suggestions regarding the ssl
module (in Python 2.6). (I gather from [1] that there is some effort
going on to enhance the ssl API, but I'm not sure if this is the right
place to discuss it.)
Like other Python users, I was a bit surprised by
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
What do you think of creating a buildbot category in the tracker? There
are
often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track, but
there's
nowhere to do so.
Do you have any specific reports that you would want to classify
On 02:30 pm, solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Hello,
What do you think of creating a buildbot category in the tracker?
There are
often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track, but
there's
nowhere to do so.
Is your idea that this would be for tracking issues with the *bots*
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 02:30 pm, solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Hello,
What do you think of creating a buildbot category in the tracker? There
are
often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track, but
there's
nowhere to do so.
Bruno Harbulot bruno.harbu...@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
Hello,
I would like to ask a few questions and suggestions regarding the ssl
module (in Python 2.6). (I gather from [1] that there is some effort
going on to enhance the ssl API, but I'm not sure if this is the right
place to discuss
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 at 19:41, Jesse Noller wrote:
Then again, I know for a fact certain tests fail ONLY on certain
buildbots because of the way they're configured. For example, certain
multiprocessing tests will fail if /dev/shm isn't accessible on Linux,
and several of the buildbosts are in
On 29 Oct, 11:41 pm, jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 02:30 pm, solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Hello,
What do you think of creating a buildbot category in the tracker?
There
are
often problems on specific buildbots which would be
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:31 PM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
I'd say that particular one is a bug in the tests. If /dev/shm is
not available and is required, then the tests should be skipped with
an appropriate message. It would also secondarily be an issue with
the
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:47:59 am Raymond Hettinger wrote:
A dict.get() can be meaningfully used in a loop (because the key can
vary). A set.get() returns the same value over and over again
(because there is no key).
I don't believe anyone has requested those semantics. The suggested
semantics
[Steven D'Aprano]
The suggested
semantics for set.get() with no arguments, as I understand them, are:
(1) it will only fail if the set is empty;
Just like next() except that next() gives you the option to supply a default
and can be used on any iterator (perhaps iter(s) or itertools.cycle(s)
17 matches
Mail list logo
