On 11/21/2019 4:46 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
(though some won't be raised until 3.8.1... we should probably mark
those, or at least update that page to warn that events may have been
added over time).
I included this in a new audit doc issue.
https://bugs.python.org/issue38892
--
Terry Jan
(Replying here since b.p.o doesn't seem to want to let me log in)
I've used the PEP 523 API several times for multiple projects, from
analyzing bytecode frequency (which probably could be done with other
means) to inspecting type information from function calls. I could probably
do such analysis
On 21Nov2019 1337, Jason Killen wrote:
I'm good, not discouraged. Thank you for the explanation I've got my
bearings now. I will try and figure out what's missing with the new
config system. If you have tips or reading material or anything else I
should know just send it on otherwise I'll
I'm good, not discouraged. Thank you for the explanation I've got my
bearings now. I will try and figure out what's missing with the new config
system. If you have tips or reading material or anything else I should
know just send it on otherwise I'll start googling.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at
On 21/11/2019 21.19, Jason Killen wrote:
> I knew the audit hooks were new but didn't realize they were quite that
> new. I didn't mean to come across as pejorative asking if people cared
> about this. The fact that I had trouble finding more information made
> me think this good stuff had been
I knew the audit hooks were new but didn't realize they were quite that
new. I didn't mean to come across as pejorative asking if people cared
about this. The fact that I had trouble finding more information made me
think this good stuff had been left by the wayside. It's new, I'll to pump
the
An unfortunate side-effect of making PyInterpreterState in Python 3.8 opaque is
it removed [PEP 523](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0523/) support.
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0523/ was opened to try and fix this, but
there seems to be a stalemate in the issue.
A key question is
On 21/11/2019 18.27, Jason Killen wrote:
> I sent in a couple of PRs, accepted and merged (Thanks!), lately that
> switch to using io.open_code when appropriate. In the process of making
> those PRs I spent a bit of time reading the two related PEPs. In
> PEP-551 there's a suggestion that people
Thanks. Yea if you bring all the backchannels together at some point I
would like to be included mostly as a listener. I totally agree about not
wanting people to think we've "solved" security. I expected that might be
the reason this hadn't been done. On the other hand I think some sort of
On 21Nov2019 0927, Jason Killen wrote:
I sent in a couple of PRs, accepted and merged (Thanks!), lately that
switch to using io.open_code when appropriate. In the process of making
those PRs I spent a bit of time reading the two related PEPs. In
PEP-551 there's a suggestion that people use a
I sent in a couple of PRs, accepted and merged (Thanks!), lately that
switch to using io.open_code when appropriate. In the process of making
those PRs I spent a bit of time reading the two related PEPs. In PEP-551
there's a suggestion that people use a restricted entry point in production
11 matches
Mail list logo
