Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> splitext(path)
> Split the pathname path into a pair (root, ext) such that root + ext ==
> path, and ext is empty or begins with a period and contains at most one
> period.
Actually, that spec could be satisfied by a function
that *always* returned an empty string for e
At 07:18 PM 3/9/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby schrieb:
> > At 08:57 AM 3/9/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> >> In the case that triggered the discussion, the change implemented
> >> was not an incompatible change, because the new implementation still
> >> met the old specif
Phillip J. Eby schrieb:
> At 08:57 AM 3/9/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> In the case that triggered the discussion, the change implemented
>> was not an incompatible change, because the new implementation still
>> met the old specification (which, of course, was underspecified).
>
> No, it
At 08:57 AM 3/9/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>In the case that triggered the discussion, the change implemented
>was not an incompatible change, because the new implementation still
>met the old specification (which, of course, was underspecified).
No, it wasn't, actually. Read the doc str
Grig Gheorghiu schrieb:
> Titus and I are thinking about mentoring a Google Summer of Code
> project that would use the 'buildbot try' feature: set up a bunch of
> buildbot slaves and set them up so sending them a patch will trigger a
> checkout of the latest Python svn, followed by the application
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> The real issue I have here is one of process. Why is it that PJE (or
> any python user who wishes their code to keep working against new
> versions of Python) must frequent python-dev and convince you (or
> whatever Python developer might be committing a patch) of e
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding of the current backwards-compatibility policy for
Python, the one that Twisted has been trying to emulate strictly, is
that, for each potentially incompatible change, there will be:
* at least
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In the past I've begged off of actually writing PEPs because I don't
> have the time, but if there is interest in codifying this I think I
> don't have the time *not* to write it. I'd prefer to document the
> pending/deprecate/remove policy first, but I can write u
On 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Buildbot has a "build this branch" feature which could be used to settle
> these discussions more rapidly, except for the fact that the community
> builders are currently in pretty sad shape:
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/commu
