[issue3300] urllib.quote and unquote - Unicode issues

Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Here's my version of how quote and unquote should be implemented in Python 3.0. I haven't looked at the uses of it in the library, but I'd expect improper uses (and there are lots of them) will break, and thus can be fixed. Basically, percent-

[issue3508] range() is not a generator when used in for's

Ezio Melotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: In Python 2.x range() always return a list. In Python 3.x it will return an iterator. Other functions will be changed to return an iterator too (see http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3100/#built-in-namespace). -- nosy: +ezio.melotti

[issue3508] range() is not a generator when used in for's

New submission from Diego <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi. I am a debian lenny user so i am still using python 2.5 so i dont know how is this "bug" working on newer pythons. Please close it if you find that it doesnt exists. It may not be a bug but. I have maked an script to optimice minterms sums (

[issue3160] Building a Win32 binary installer crashes

Viktor Ferenczi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Note: It is already fixed and should go into the next beta. Thanks. ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___

[issue3506] Change buffer/memoryview DeprecationWarning

Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > Definitely don't bring buffer() back in 3.0! It needs to die. > > If 2to3 can do this reasonably well,

[issue3173] external strftime for Python?

Changes by Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- nosy: +schmir ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing li

[issue3026] integer overflow in hashlib causes wrong results for cryptographic hash functions [was: mmap broken with large files on 64bit system]

Changes by Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- title: mmap broken with large files on 64bit system -> integer overflow in hashlib causes wrong results for cryptographic hash functions [was: mmap broken with large files on 64bit system] ___ Python t

[issue1309567] linecache module returns wrong results

Hans Ulrich Niedermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Unless someone has fixed it since 2008-07-05, it is still relevant. I'll have to take a look at the current code first, though, to confirm in either way. There has been some discussion on this issue over at http://bugs.python.org/iss

[issue2305] Update What's new in 2.6

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Thanks for the feedback, I'll do that. I have 50% time instead of 20%, though it doesn't feel that way lately. ;-) ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __

[issue2305] Update What's new in 2.6

A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Oh, and it might be more realistic to keep the 3.0 document as a set of notes, and aim to have a more finished document in 3.1. ISTM it'll be hard to finish writing it in time for a planned 3.0 release, even if you spent your 20% work-time on

[issue2305] Update What's new in 2.6

A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I agree; we don't want to require people to read the 2.6 document, and then the 3.0 document to get a complete picture. Besides, the organization of the 2.x documents may not be suitable for the 3.0 document. The 2.x documents are organized

[issue3506] Change buffer/memoryview DeprecationWarning

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Definitely don't bring buffer() back in 3.0! It needs to die. If 2to3 can do this reasonably well, let's do that. -- nosy: +gvanrossum ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue2305] Update What's new in 2.6

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Great! The same cannot be said of the 3.0 version, which is on my plate. I wonder if you have an opinion on what to do with features that were initially targeted for 3.0 and then backported to 2.6. Should these appear in "what's new in 2.

[issue3507] spelling in try.html

New submission from jqxvjqxv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: http://docs.python.org/ref/try.html Please replace "propogate" with correct spelling "propagate". -- assignee: georg.brandl components: Documentation messages: 70760 nosy: georg.brandl, jqxvjqxv severity: normal status: open title: spelli

[issue1503] test_xmlrpc is still flakey

Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I would say without a decision on what to do, there will be no patch :) I can write a patch, which unconditionally turns on blocking mode for sockets returned from accept (on unix-platforms). Would that be fine? ___

[issue1309567] linecache module returns wrong results

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Is this still relevant? ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___ Python-bugs-lis

[issue2590] S_unpack_from() Read Access Violation

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Ping? Patch? -- nosy: +gvanrossum ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___

[issue2310] Reorganize the 3.0 Misc/NEWS file

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Let's see if we can fix this by beta3. -- assignee: gvanrossum -> priority: -> release blocker ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue3506] Change buffer/memoryview DeprecationWarning

New submission from Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Right now in 2.6, using buffer() warns that it is going away and to use memoryview(). Unfortunately memoryview() won't be backported to 2.6 in time for release. That means the warning is covering something that is within 2to3's realm. So the

[issue1985] Bug/Patch: Problem with xml/__init__.py when using freeze.py

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Nobody seems to care enough. -- resolution: -> rejected ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue2305] Update What's new in 2.6

A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: It's in good shape. There are a few items in my saved-email folder that need to be added, and a few XXX markers here and there, but I've done the large stuff, like writing a section on the multiprocessing module. _

[issue3262] re.split doesn't split with zero-width regex

Mike Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Okay. For what it's worth, note that my original 2004 patch for this (#988761) is completely backward compatible (a flag must be set in the call to get the new behavior). ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED

[issue616013] cPickle documentation incomplete

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: 2.6 should keep the original cPickle, warts and all, for backwards compatibility. I'd be okay though with also having _pickle there -- just don't call in cPickle (and don't import it from pickle.py either).

[issue1503] test_xmlrpc is still flakey

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Without a patch this will not improve. ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___ Pyt

[issue3262] re.split doesn't split with zero-width regex

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I think it's better to leave this alone. Such a subtle change is likely to trip over more people in worse ways than the alleged "bug". -- resolution: -> rejected ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROT

[issue2235] __eq__ / __hash__ check doesn't take inheritance into account

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: How's this going? ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue1616] compiler warnings

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Let someone else review this. -- assignee: gvanrossum -> priority: critical -> normal ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __

[issue1518] Fast globals/builtins access (patch)

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Won't have time myself. -- assignee: gvanrossum -> priority: critical -> normal ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue1717] Get rid of more refercenes to __cmp__

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Can someone other than me test and apply this? It seems still relevant, and __cmp__ is not coming back. -- assignee: gvanrossum -> ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue1179] [CVE-2007-4965] Integer overflow in imageop module

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: The two segfaults reported in msg64682 are still there in 2.6. I'm elevating this to release blocker but don't have time to fix this myself. -- assignee: gvanrossum -> priority: critical -> release blocker versions: +Python 2.6 __

[issue2389] Array pickling exposes internal memory representation of elements

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Agreed, this has been broken for a long time, and few people have noticed or complained. Let's wait. -- assignee: gvanrossum -> versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1 -Python 2.6, Python 3.0 ___ Pyt

[issue2305] Update What's new in 2.6

Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: How's this coming along? -- versions: +Python 2.6 ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___

[issue2396] Backport memoryview object to Python 2.6

Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Not a release blocker then :-) -- priority: release blocker -> critical ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___

[issue3499] Python 2.6 requires pre-installed Python to build

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: It should be simple to modify release.py to touch these files. Barry, I'm on vacation now, but I should be able to do this before you spin the releases. -- assignee: -> benjamin.peterson nosy: +barry, benjamin.peterson priority: c

[issue1745] Backport of PEP 3102 "keyword-only arguments" to 2.6

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:35 AM, tav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > tav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > What's holding back the backport to 2.6? The fact that we are working towards the 3rd and final beta. > > -- > nosy:

[issue2396] Backport memoryview object to Python 2.6

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I concur. -- nosy: +benjamin.peterson versions: +Python 2.7 -Python 2.6 ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue3500] unbound methods of different classes compare equal

Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Hi, > It's the same function attached to two different classes. I don't > really buy the "implementation detail" argument - if Guido says it, > then I don't have much choice but to accept it, but I'm going to > argue about it with anyone els

[issue3500] unbound methods of different classes compare equal

Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > But you acknowledge they are really the same method attached to > different classes, right? The notion of "unbound method" is mostly an > implementation detail. The term occurs only 4 times in the whole Python > documentation (according

[issue3505] single/double quote error in Python v2.6b2 documentation

New submission from paul stoop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: hi, On http://docs.python.org/ref/strings.html we find longstring ::= "'''" longstringitem* "'''" | '"""' longstringitem* '"""' (correct), but, on http://docs.python.org/dev/reference/lexical_analysis.html#id7 we find: v

[issue3504] Python Reference Manual inconsistency (Notation)

Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: This is already fixed in the development docs: http://docs.python.org/dev/reference/introduction.html#id2 -- resolution: -> out of date status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue3477] grammar productionlist are not properly indented

Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Thanks, fixed in r65547. -- resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue3504] Python Reference Manual inconsistency (Notation)

New submission from paul stoop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On page http://docs.python.org/ref/notation.html the following text: name::= lc_letter lc_letter ::= "a"..."z" The first line says that a name is an lc_letter followed by a sequence of zero or more lc_letters and unders

[issue3503] Calls to print() function in Python 3.0 tutorial

Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Thanks for the patch! Committed in r65545. For the fibonacci example, I just left out the final print(). For simplicity's case, it's fine for the example to have the minor flaw of not printing a final newline -- it is there to show the end keyw