Darren Dale wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
>>> Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
>>> but "Standard"
>>> doesn't really express what we want to achieve here I think,
>> I think StandardVersion i
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2009/12/10 Lennart Regebro :
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 20:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> Since the intent of IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL is to make doctests immune to
>>> implementation version specific changes, it seems to me that extending its
>>> technical meaning is require
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
[..]
>
> No, the PEP document itself should either contain the questions and
> answers, or contain a link to the discussion along with a brief summary
> of what it was about and a explicit statement of its outcome.
Ok then, I'll add a section sum
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Darren Dale wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>> Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
but "Standard"
doesn't really express what
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (12/04/09 - 12/11/09)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
2526 open (+34) / 16775 closed (+11) / 19301 total (+45)
Open issues with patches: 1007
Average
While debugging a network algorithm in Python 2.6.2, I encountered
some strange behavior and was wondering whether it has to do with some
sort of code optimization that Python does behind the scenes.
After initialization: defaultdict(, {1: set([1])})
Popping and updating in two steps
Roy Hyunjin Han wrote:
> While debugging a network algorithm in Python 2.6.2, I encountered
> some strange behavior and was wondering whether it has to do with some
> sort of code optimization that Python does behind the scenes.
>
>
>
> After initialization: defaultdict(, {1: set([1]
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
Roy Hyunjin Han wrote:
While debugging a network algorithm in Python 2.6.2, I encountered
some strange behavior and was wondering whether it has to do with some
sort of code optimization that Python does behind the scenes.
After initialization: defaultdic
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 21:24, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
> 2009/12/10 Lennart Regebro :
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 20:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >> Since the intent of IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL is to make doctests immune to
> >> implementation version specific changes, it seems to me that extending
On 9 Dec, 06:09 pm, fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 09/12/2009 18:02, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 05:11 pm, lrege...@jarn.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 17:34, Michael Foord
wrote:
Can you be more specific?
Only with an insane amount of work. I'll hold that off for a while.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 21:36, wrote:
> Certainly. Perhaps Zope would like to add something to the community
> builders page.
The Zope Component Architecture would be nice to test like that. Much
of the rest of Zope needs massaging between python versions, so that
may not be useful.
http://ww
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:43 PM, MRAB wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>
>> Roy Hyunjin Han wrote:
>>>
>>> While debugging a network algorithm in Python 2.6.2, I encountered
>>> some strange behavior and was wondering whether it has to do with some
>>> sort of code optimization that Python does
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 21:24, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 2009/12/10 Lennart Regebro :
>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 20:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
Since the intent of IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL is to make doctests immune to
implementation version specific changes, it se
Roy Hyunjin Han wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:43 PM, MRAB wrote:
>> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>> y[1].update(y.pop(1))
>>>
>>> is going to be evaluating y[1] before it evaluates y.pop(1).
>>> Which means that it has the original set returned, which is then removed
>>> by y.pop, and updated.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 21:36, wrote:
>> Certainly. Perhaps Zope would like to add something to the community
>> builders page.
>
> The Zope Component Architecture would be nice to test like that. Much
> of the rest of Zope
15 matches
Mail list logo
