In working on making Python 2.7 available in Debian and Ubuntu, we ran into
two packages that fail to byte compile against Python 2.7, where they are fine
in Python 2.6. The Debian bug tracker issues are:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=590821
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-b
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> In working on making Python 2.7 available in Debian and Ubuntu, we ran into
> two packages that fail to byte compile against Python 2.7, where they are fine
> in Python 2.6. The Debian bug tracker issues are:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi
On Jul 30, 2010, at 01:42 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Well it is a reserved name so those packages that were setting it
>should have known that they were using undefined behavior that could
>change at any time.
Shouldn't it be described here then?
http://docs.python.org/reference/lexical_analys
On 30/07/2010 21:53, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 01:42 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well it is a reserved name so those packages that were setting it
should have known that they were using undefined behavior that could
change at any time.
Shouldn't it be described here the
2010/7/30 Barry Warsaw :
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 01:42 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>Well it is a reserved name so those packages that were setting it
>>should have known that they were using undefined behavior that could
>>change at any time.
>
> Shouldn't it be described here then?
>
> http://doc
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 01:42 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>Well it is a reserved name so those packages that were setting it
>>should have known that they were using undefined behavior that could
>>change at any time.
>
> Shouldn't it be descri
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:44:42 am Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Barry Warsaw
wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2010, at 01:42 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >>Well it is a reserved name so those packages that were setting it
> >>should have known that they were using undefined behav
On Jul 31, 2010, at 08:32 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:44:42 am Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Barry Warsaw
>wrote:
>> > On Jul 30, 2010, at 01:42 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> >>Well it is a reserved name so those packages that were setting it
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I've always understood the rules on
double-underscore names to mean that Python reserves the use of those names
for its own purposes, and is free to break your code if you define your own.
That's very different than saying it's forbidden to use double-underscore
names for your
2010/7/30 Barry Warsaw :
>
> It looks like Benjamin's change in r67171 was the relevant diff.
The reason behind this was to make __debug__ assignment consistent
with that of other reserved names. For example, x.None = 3 raised and
thus, so should x.__debug__ = 3.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
_
On Aug 01, 2010, at 09:56 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>2010/7/30 Barry Warsaw :
>>
>> It looks like Benjamin's change in r67171 was the relevant diff.
>
>The reason behind this was to make __debug__ assignment consistent
>with that of other reserved names. For example, x.None = 3 raised and
>thus
11 matches
Mail list logo
