Alexander Belopolsky writes:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
> > ... On the original question, I
> > think it's preferable to keep compilers happy unless you're willing to
> > *require* C99.
>
> Hmm, maybe I should take another look at http://bugs.python.o
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Ron Adam wrote:
..
>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:47 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
>>>
>>> So it is obvious that we don't have a clearly stated policy for what
>>> defines the public API of standard library modules.
>>>
>>> How about making this explicit (either pep 8 or our
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> ... On the original question, I
> think it's preferable to keep compilers happy unless you're willing to
> *require* C99.
Hmm, maybe I should take another look at http://bugs.python.org/issue4805 .
Note that issue #10359 was not abo
Alexander Belopolsky writes:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Victor Stinner
> wrote:
> ..
> > I don't know, but the commit is trivial and cheap. If it improves the
> > support
> > on uncommon compiler, I agree to commit such change.
> >
>
> But it does it at the cost of invalidating
On Nov 10, 2010, at 2:21 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
> On the other hand, if you make the primary mechanism to indicate privateness
> be a leading underscore, that's obvious to everyone.
+1.
One of the best features of Python is the ability to make a conscious decision
to break the interface of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/11/10 22:19, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> Seems to be offline now. I get timeouts.
>
> I just had no problems updating issue 9807.
That was 10 hours after my message :-).
- --
Jesus Cea Avion
On 11/10/2010 01:33 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:47 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
So it is obvious that we don't have a clearly stated policy for what defines
the public API of standard library modules.
How about making this explicit (either pep 8 or our developer docs):
On Nov 10, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
> How about making this explicit (either pep 8 or our developer docs):
>
> If a module or package defines __all__ that authoritatively defines the
> public interface. Modules with __all__ SHOULD still respect the naming
> conventions (leading un
I finally found a chance to address all the outstanding technical issues
mentioned in bug 9807:
http://bugs.python.org/issue9807
I've uploaded a new patch which contains the rest of the changes I'm
proposing. I think we still need consensus about whether these changes are
good to commit. Wi
On Nov 10, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
>On 09/11/10 22:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> bugs.python.org is moving to a new hardware; this also involves a new IP
>> address. The migration will happen on Thursday, likely around 8:00 UTC.
>> If all goes well, outage should be very short.
>
>Se
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
..
> I don't know, but the commit is trivial and cheap. If it improves the support
> on uncommon compiler, I agree to commit such change.
>
But it does it at the cost of invalidating the "svn blame" for the
last enum entry now and for future
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 05:47, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 08/11/2010 22:07, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>>> I think we need to, as a group, decide how to handle undocumented APIs
>>> that don't have a leading underscore: they get treated just t
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I don't really understand
what Tres is talking about when he writes "modules that expect to be
imported this way". The *imported* module shouldn't care, no? This
is an issue for the *importing* code to deal with.
I think he's talking about modules that add a prefix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/09/2010 11:12 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Nick Coghlan writes:
>
> > > Module writers who compound the error by expecting to be imported
> > > this way, thereby bogarting the global namespace for their own
> > > purposes, should be fish-
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:12:09 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
wrote:
> Nick Coghlan writes:
>
> > > Module writers who compound the error by expecting to be imported
> > > this way, thereby bogarting the global namespace for their own
> > > purposes, should be fish-slapped. ;)
> >
> > Be prepa
On 08/11/2010 22:07, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Nov 8, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I think we need to, as a group, decide how to handle undocumented APIs
that don't have a leading underscore: they get treated just the same
as the documented APIs, or are they private regardless and t
On 09/11/2010 22:09, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
Outside an interactive prompt, anyone using "from foo import *" has set
themselves and their users up to lose anyway.
That syntax is the single worst misfeature in all of Python. It impairs
readabilit
On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:47 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
> So it is obvious that we don't have a clearly stated policy for what defines
> the public API of standard library modules.
>
> How about making this explicit (either pep 8 or our developer docs):
I believe the point of Guido's email was th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/11/10 22:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> bugs.python.org is moving to a new hardware; this also involves a new IP
> address. The migration will happen on Thursday, likely around 8:00 UTC.
> If all goes well, outage should be very short.
Seems to
On 11/10/2010 05:12 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
But these identifiers will appear at the module level, not global, no?
Otherwise this technique couldn't be used. I don't really understand
what Tres is talking about when he writes "modules that expect to be
imported this way". The *imported*
On 10 November 2010 04:12, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Nick Coghlan writes:
>
> > > Module writers who compound the error by expecting to be imported
> > > this way, thereby bogarting the global namespace for their own
> > > purposes, should be fish-slapped. ;)
> >
> > Be prepared to fish-sl
On Tuesday 09 November 2010 17:23:23 Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:39 AM, victor.stinner
> wrote:
> ..
>
> > Log:
> > Issue #10359: Remove useless comma, invalid in ISO C
>
> C99 allows it. Which compiler is giving you trouble?
I don't know, but the commit is trivial a
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 09/11/2010 22:09, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> The new unittest package in 2.7 and 3.2 also uses it in the module
>> __init__ to present the old "flat" namespace despite become a package
>> under the hood.
>
> Look again. :-)
>
> Benjamin did t
23 matches
Mail list logo
