> I saw them. Your brain must be wired very differently
> to mine, because I find loops with a continue in them
> harder to follow than ones without -- exactly the
> opposite of what you seem to prefer.
Delurking for no particular reason:
For what it's worth, I also favor the continue syntax Heik
Tim> If there's no functionality changes, what would be the problem with
Tim> putting it in post-alpha?
It still represents new code that may introduce new bugs. In theory (and
generally in practice for Python), once you move into the beta stage all you
do is fix bugs.
Skip
On 5/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim> If there's no functionality changes, what would be the problem withTim> putting it in post-alpha?It still represents new code that may introduce new bugs. In theory (andgenerally in practice for Python), once you move into the b
I try to move this to -dev as I hope there more people reading it who
are competent in internal working :). So please replay to -dev only.
-
The question is about use of generators in embedde v2.4 with asserts
enabled.
Can somebody explain, why the code in try2.c works with wrappers
Niko Matsakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I saw them. Your brain must be wired very differently
> > to mine, because I find loops with a continue in them
> > harder to follow than ones without -- exactly the
> > opposite of what you seem to prefer.
>
> Delurking for no particular reason:
>
Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why isn't this good practice? It's not always sensible to refactor loop code
> to call methods (to make the loop body shorter), and it's a pretty general
> case that you only want to iterate over part of a generator, not over the
> whole content. Becau
At 02:32 PM 4/28/2006 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>I'd like to include paste.lint with that as well (as wsgiref.lint or
>whatever). Since the last discussion I enumerated in the docstring all
>the checks it does. There's still some outstanding issues, mostly where
>I'm not sure if it is too restric
Thomas Wouters wrote:
> On 5/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tim> If there's no functionality changes, what would be the
> problem with Tim> putting it in post-alpha?
>
> It still represents new code that may introduce new bugs. In theory
> (and
> generally in p
Niko Matsakis wrote:
> For what it's worth, I also favor the continue syntax Heiko compared
> his code against.
I also commonly do early tests and either break or continue, but my
criteria is whether it makes the flow easier to understand. Sometimes it
does, sometimes it doesn't.
(on two lines of
Niko Matsakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I also favor the continue syntax Heiko compared
> his code against. Without it, you have to scroll to the end of the
> loop to know whether there is an else clause;
Only if the code doesn't fit on one screen, which it should.
Hi Skip,
Did you ever find Charles Waldman? We are looking for him too.
Monica
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%
How long have you used Python? 10 years or longer? Please tell us how
you first heard of the language, how you first used it, and how you
helped develop it (if you did). More recent reminiscences are welcome
too!
Please add them to my blog:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=161207
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:32 PM 4/28/2006 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>> I'd like to include paste.lint with that as well (as wsgiref.lint or
>> whatever). Since the last discussion I enumerated in the docstring all
>> the checks it does. There's still some outstanding issues, mostly where
>> I
This explains what to do, and which license to use:
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/
--Guido
On 5/22/06, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > At 02:32 PM 4/28/2006 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> >> I'd like to include paste.lint with that as well (as wsgiref.lint or
On 5/22/06, martin.v.loewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: martin.v.loewis
> Date: Mon May 22 11:15:18 2006
> New Revision: 46064
>
> Modified: python/trunk/Include/Python.h
> ==
> --- python/trunk/Include/Python.h
It's not clear to me whether this means that Ian can just relicense his
code for me to slap into wsgiref and thence into Python by virtue of my own
PSF contribution form and the compatible license, or whether it means Ian
has to sign a form too.
At 09:25 PM 5/22/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wro
Anthony's schedule is a bit up in the air which means this schedule
does not reflect what reality will be. Perhaps we will skip a3
altogether which will give more time in a sense, though not in reality
since b1 in that case will hopefully be on or before June 14. FWIW:
alpha 3: May 25, 2006
[Phillip J. Eby]
> It's not clear to me whether this means that Ian can just relicense his
> code for me to slap into wsgiref and thence into Python by virtue of my own
> PSF contribution form and the compatible license, or whether it means Ian
> has to sign a form too.
It's clearly best if Ian si
Neal Norwitz wrote:
> What is the reason for the DONT_HAVE_* macros? Can we use the HAVE_*
> versions?
I think the actual rationale is that the contributor didn't want to be
bothered with modifying configure.in, and running autoconf.
I accepted the change since systems which don't have, say, ,
a
Neal Norwitz wrote:
> Anthony's schedule is a bit up in the air which means this schedule
> does not reflect what reality will be. Perhaps we will skip a3
> altogether which will give more time in a sense, though not in reality
> since b1 in that case will hopefully be on or before June 14. FWIW:
20 matches
Mail list logo
