Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue47153>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue47061>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue47022>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
New submission from Barry Davis :
This bug exists again: https://bugs.python.org/issue1521375
In ctypes/util we defend against gcc removing /dev/null by using a temp file,
but similar code for ld still uses /dev/null, resulting in it removing
/dev/null if it has permission, i.e. if running
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue46896>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
> Usually the calling function object should be enough.
I want to at least provide some historical context on why sys._getframe()
exists. I originally wrote that to support PEP 292 and internationalization in
Mailman. This has since been extracted i
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
IIRC, Carl got a lot of benefit out of reordering the opcodes in the main loop
to put the most common ones at the top. I don't know if that is still relevant
or whether computed gotos, when enabled, change that cal
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Very interesting. Do we have any current (or even cutting edge, i.e. 3.11)
timings for individual instructions? Or a breakdown of how frequently
different instructions are invoked? I remember Carl Shapiro presenting his
findings here several years ago
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
What are the (unoptimized) performance implications of replacing one
instruction with multiple instructions?
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue46
Barry Schwartz added the comment:
I meant constant bounded
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue46488>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsub
Barry Schwartz added the comment:
Yes. Actually the issue is branching, not order of complexity, because looping
at most 64 times is a linear-bounded operation. The methods I point out involve
no branching! And so can be rather fast. I don't suggest they be used, but that
the listsor
New submission from Barry Schwartz :
The Objects/listsort.txt incorrectly implies that it is not possible to compute
leading zero bits in O(1) time, using only standard C. For a fixed integer size
it can be done, for instance, using de Bruijn sequences. See
https://www.chessprogramming.org
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue46330>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
sys.exception() seems like a decent enough trade-off. I've always disliked the
abbreviations in "exc_info". It doesn't feel big enough for a PEP to me.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bug
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue46328>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
As Dennis points out, this is not a bug, it's already valid Python syntax.
--
nosy: +barry
resolution: -> not a bug
status: pending -> open
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
I think you’re right that the iterator API isn’t very helpful. I also agree
that you probably really want to answer the “why identifiers are in this
template?” question. As for repeats, there’s two ways to think about it. You
could return all the
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
I've never personally needed this, but I could see where it could come in handy.
I wonder if __iter__() would be the right API for that? I wonder then if we
should also implement __contains__()?
Would you be interested in creating a PR for the fe
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
> Barry: The PEP 8 'return None' recommendation could be added to the Reference
> entry for 'return'. But I think this should be a separate issue as 1) it is
> about coding rather than documentation and 2) there is the possib
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
I think it does a better service to users to explain how Python returns None
implicitly if a function doesn't have any other explicit return value. If the
print() docs had this note, it would be confusing why other similar functions
don't.
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue46090>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue46142>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue22789>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
> A LBYL won't always raise errors early as you point out. It will give earlier
> warnings for a lot of cases, but makes contextlib.chdir usable in less places
> than os.chdir.
> Some return paths will always be errors, and some wi
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Does a LBYL strategy actually fix the problem? E.g. what if the directory gets
rm'd between __enter__ and __exit__? Maybe we shouldn't try to be clever at
all and just leave it to the user to decide what to do, and how to handle any
chdir-bac
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Thanks for your comprehensive comments Eric! While I digest them, my TL;DR is
that we probably need a PEP to describe everything from the current situation,
to the the desired end state and migration path. I'm willing to put that
together with yo
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Thank you for doing this work Irit! Just to point out that anybody who wants a
modern replacement for smtpd should look at aiosmtpd:
https://aiosmtpd.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
--
___
Python tracker
<ht
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45552>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
> Yes, precisely. Besides being an unreachable long abs path, it might have
> been deleted since last visited. I’m working on a few more odd test cases.
Ah, the deleted case. Sounds like LBYL wouldn’t work in that cas
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Oct 20, 2021, at 08:28, Eric Snow wrote:
>
> The only catch I see is where the module's code sets one of the attrs. Would
> the proxy (or import machinery) pick those up, or maybe for some of them emit
> a warning or fail?
>
>
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Oct 20, 2021, at 08:18, Eric Snow wrote:
> The spec identifies how a module should be loaded (or how it was loaded and
> should be reloaded). We should be careful to preserve that identify and not
> invite uses to modify the spec after (or w
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Oct 20, 2021, at 11:31, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> +1 on a proxy (with read-only attrs) for everything but __name__, __file__,
>> and __path__ (which can all be different than the spec).
>
> I'm -1 on a proxy as that doesn't
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Oct 20, 2021, at 11:38, Eric Snow wrote:
>
> Regardless, I expect the primary reason __package__ is writable is
> because modules have never had any read-only attrs.
So historical accident mostly.
> The more important question now
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Does this mean that CWD could be in a directory that you couldn't chdir() back
into?
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Oct 20, 2021, at 11:27, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> That should probably be a separate issue/PR in either case.
>
> https://bugs.python.org/issue38782 and I was trying to rope you into doing
> the work. 😁
Ha! You should have nosie
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue38782>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
New changeset 876fc7fcec9a79a11546b7588d3683a5ccb4d31c by Barry Warsaw in
branch 'main':
bpo-35673: Add a public alias for namespace package __loader__ attribute
(#29049)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/876fc7fcec9a79a11546b7588d3683
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +brett.cannon, eric.snow
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45540>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsub
New submission from Barry A. Warsaw :
TL;DR module.__spec__.parent is read-only but module.__package__ is r/w despite
documentation that implies that these two attributes should be identical, and
various issues that focus on migrating from direct module attributes to
ModuleSpec attributes
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
pull_requests: +27351
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/29085
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue42
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Woot! I finally figured out the problem and how to fix it. It has nothing to
do with Python and everything to do with AT&T. They run a service called DNS
Error Assist, quoting:
"Sometimes we enter a wrong search word, or a wrong web address, or
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +27347
stage: test needed -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/29078
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
I don't know. What benefit would be gained? That should probably be a
separate issue/PR in either case.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
I can see why Ethan might be overwhelmed by reverting this change. I tried to
merge in his branch but failed, so I'm chucking that work and will try again.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.py
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Since the documentation problem reported here has since been fixed, and really
all that's left is to expose NamespaceLoader publicly and register it with the
abc, this is technically a new feature so it can't be backported. Thus,
targeting
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
First crack at a PR for this issue.
--
keywords: +needs review -patch
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +27320
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/29049
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
versions: +Python 3.10, Python 3.11, Python 3.9 -Python 3.6, Python 3.7, Python
3.8
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
I'm going to take a look at this during the Python core sprint.
--
assignee: -> barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
This doesn't seem right, given that PEP 663 has not been approved by the SC yet:
3.9.7 (default, Oct 13 2021, 06:45:31)
[Clang 13.0.0 (clang-1300.0.29.3)]
ABC.a ABC.b ABC.c ABC.a
|main=|@presto[~/projects/python/cpython:1058]% python3.10 /tmp/f
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Weird. PR 28655 is merged on GH, but still shows open on this bpo ticket.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue21
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: -barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37722>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
FWIW, Greg's test case does not fail for me with 6a533a4238
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45324>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45020>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Sep 16, 2021, at 00:36, STINNER Victor wrote:
>
> The commit title is wrong, the default "big" not sys.byteorder:
>
>int.to_bytes(length=1, byteorder='big', *, signed=False)
>int.from_bytes(bytes, byte
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
New changeset 07e737d002cdbf0bfee53248a652a86c9f93f02b by Barry Warsaw in
branch 'main':
bpo-45155 : Default arguments for int.to_bytes(length=1,
byteorder=sys.byteorder) (#28265)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
This bug made my day! :-D
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45202>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
"big" by default
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45155>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Sep 13, 2021, at 22:12, Vedran Čačić wrote:
>
>
> Vedran Čačić added the comment:
>
> I'd say yes. Of course, one way to ascertain that would be to conduct a valid
> pool. ;-)
People can always comment otherwise
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Sep 13, 2021, at 13:39, Vedran Čačić wrote:
>
> The poll is invalid, since the option that most people want is deliberately
> not offered.
*Is* there an option that most people want?
--
___
Pytho
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Sep 13, 2021, at 13:38, STINNER Victor wrote:
> It seems like your proposal is mostly guided by: convert an int to a byte
> (bytes string of length 1). IMO this case is special enough to justify the
> usage of a different function.
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
> I'd probably say "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess".
>
> As there's disagreement about the 'correct' default, make it None and require
> either "big" or "little" if len
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
I created a Discourse poll:
https://discuss.python.org/t/what-should-be-the-default-value-for-int-to-bytes-byteorder/10616
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
That’s okay, Brandt’s improved sys.byteorder is fastest .
% ./python.exe -m timeit -r11 -s 'x=3452452454524' 'x.to_bytes(10, "little")'
200 loops, best of 11: 94.6 nsec per loop
% ./python.exe -m timeit -r11 -s 'x=
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Petr Viktorin added the comment:
>
> Exactly, a platform-dependent default is a bad idea. A default allows using
> the function without the code author & reviewer even being *aware* that there
> is a choice, and that is dangerous.
I’m not
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Sep 10, 2021, at 04:06, STINNER Victor wrote:
>
> If the intent is to create a bytes string of length 1, I'm not sure that
> "re-using" this existing API for that is a good idea.
Why not? It seems an obviou
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Just to point out, struct module also uses “native” (i.e. system) byte order by
default. Any choice other than that for to_bytes() seems both arbitrary and
inconsistent.
> On Sep 10, 2021, at 00:48, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>
> Exactly, a platform-
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
For the common case where you’re using all defaults, it won’t matter.
byteorder doesn’t matter when length=1.
> On Sep 9, 2021, at 18:12, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>
> Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
>
> Perhaps instead
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
> Ah, signed=False by default, so (128).to_bytes() will work. But I still worry
> that it can provoke writing more errorprone code.
Can you elaborate on that? Obviously no existing code will change behavior. I
really don’t expect people to write
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +26685
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/28265
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45
New submission from Barry A. Warsaw :
In the PEP 467 discussion, I proposed being able to use
>>> (65).to_bytes()
b'A'
IOW, adding default arguments for the `length` and `byteorder` arguments to
`int.to_bytes()`
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-...
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Thanks Ned. Seems you might be right. I thought I'd done a clean test, but in
any event, I just pulled 3.10 head and verified that it's producing 100%
coverage. Thanks all for the fix!
--
resolution: -> fixed
status: o
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
I just retested my test case (see the coveragepy link below) with Python 3.10
git head and coveragepy git head, and I'm still seeing the misses only in
Python 3.10:
-- coverage: platform darwin, python 3.10.0-beta-4 ---
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Pablo, this is triggered by my bug report here:
https://github.com/nedbat/coveragepy/issues/1187
I tested this again today with the 3.10 git head and still got the coverage
misses. Happy to try any other combinations
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
Jason, I think the question you raise re: accelerated deprecation, is probably
a RM or SC question. I'll nosy in Pablo and see if he has a strong opinion.
--
nosy: +pablogsal
___
Python tracker
&
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
New changeset 7223ce3b3f50ec8a825e317437ea0359b6ad6856 by Miss Islington (bot)
in branch '3.10':
bpo-44613: Make importlib.metadata non-provisional (GH-27101) (#27106)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/7223ce3b3f50ec8a825e317437ea03
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
New changeset f6954cdfc50060a54318fb2aea4d80408381243a by Barry Warsaw in
branch 'main':
bpo-44613: Make importlib.metadata non-provisional (#27101)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/f6954cdfc50060a54318fb2aea4d80
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue44616>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +25649
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/27101
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
New submission from Barry A. Warsaw :
As discussed with Jason, importlib.metadata will be made non-provisional in
3.10. I have a PR in the works for this.
--
assignee: barry
components: Documentation
messages: 397344
nosy: barry, jaraco
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue33025>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue43945>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue44246>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
New changeset 8488b85c6397fe58f17fc00e047044c959ac0b04 by Barry Warsaw in
branch 'main':
bpo-44498: Issue a deprecation warning on asynchat, asyncore and smtpd import
(#26882)
https://github.com/python/cpyt
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
pull_requests: +25459
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/26882
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue44
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
+1 for removal
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue44498>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue40280>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Anilyka Barry added the comment:
I'd forgotten that I did that. Looking back on it, this is indeed not a good
change. Since there hasn't been any traction on in for 5 years, I think it's
safe to say it's not something people want.
--
resolution: -> rejec
Change by Barry A. Warsaw :
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue43817>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
@jaraco beat me to it. PRs approved!
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
I'd still like to. I'm also happy to review any PRs if someone beats me to it.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.o
Barry Alan Scott added the comment:
Thanks Petr, I'll watch for the PEP.
FYI: I work on the assumption that if I use Py_LIMITED_API and the header
files provide an API guarded by an #if then its "offical".
--
___
Python
Barry Alan Scott added the comment:
Is there a test suite that checks that the limited API functions can all be
linked against?
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue43
Barry Alan Scott added the comment:
Understood that changing the status quo may have problems.
Maybe you do an HTTP redirect from the old name to the new name?
Or have the installed available under both names but only advertise the new
name
Barry Alan Scott added the comment:
I was wondering what the bottom text box was for.
The usual UX for check boxes is to toggle when the text of the control is
clicked.
Because of that I avoid clicking on check boxes that I do not know if I want to
change. Hence I did not get to see the
Barry Alan Scott added the comment:
The readme page is a good 2nd best is PKG install has not option to control the
text on the INstallation type page.
My guess is that the info would need be in visible without
scrolling for people to notice it. (UX is hard
1 - 100 of 2726 matches
Mail list logo