[issue23898] inspect() changes in Python3.4 are not compatible with objects that implement special __bool__, __eq__

2015-04-09 Thread mike bayer
mike bayer added the comment: patch w/ test -- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38882/issue23898.patch ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue23

[issue23898] inspect() changes in Python3.4 are not compatible with objects that implement special __bool__, __eq__

2015-04-09 Thread mike bayer
New submission from mike bayer: this bug appeared in Python 3.4.The inspect.classify_class_attrs compares the identity objects of unknown type using the `==` operator unnecessarily and also evaluates objects of unknown type assuming they return `True` for a straight boolean evaluation

[issue23898] inspect() changes in Python3.4 are not compatible with objects that implement special __bool__, __eq__

2015-04-15 Thread mike bayer
mike bayer added the comment: my star went through. let's merge. -- ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue23898> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list m

[issue23898] inspect() changes in Python3.4 are not compatible with objects that implement special __bool__, __eq__

2015-05-21 Thread mike bayer
mike bayer added the comment: thanks for the merge! -- ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue23898> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue14976] queue.Queue() is not reentrant, so signals and GC can cause deadlocks

2016-09-08 Thread mike bayer
mike bayer added the comment: SQLAlchemy suffered from this issue long ago as we use a Queue for connections, which can be collected via weakref callback and sent back to put(), which we observed can occur via gc.For many years (like since 2007 or so) we've packaged a complete co

[issue14976] queue.Queue() is not reentrant, so signals and GC can cause deadlocks

2016-09-09 Thread mike bayer
mike bayer added the comment: yep, that's what im doing in my approach. though longer term thing, I noticed it's very hard to find documentation on exactly when gc might run. E.g. would it ever run if I did something innocuous, like "self.thread_id = None" (probably

[issue28171] getopt.getopt error processing long_options

2016-09-15 Thread Mike Hagerty
New submission from Mike Hagerty: Here's the relevant code: opts, args = getopt.getopt(sys.argv[1:], "ih", ["help", "f1Hz","startdate=", "ndays="]) >main.py -i --f1H --startdat=2016-08-22 --ndays 2 Here's what getopt returns into

[issue28171] getopt.getopt error processing long_options

2016-09-15 Thread Mike Hagerty
Mike Hagerty added the comment: Huh ? "documented behaviour" ? How is silently failing to resolve input errors okay ? On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:04 PM, SilentGhost wrote: > > SilentGhost added the comment: > > It's a documented behaviour: "Long options on the

[issue28171] getopt.getopt error processing long_options

2016-09-15 Thread Mike Hagerty
Mike Hagerty added the comment: You win. It's not a bug, it's a feature ... that renders the module incorrect by any reasonable definition. argparse here I come! On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano added the comment: > &

[issue26388] Disabling changing sys.argv[0] with runpy.run_module(...alter_sys=True)

2016-10-23 Thread Mike Kaplinskiy
Mike Kaplinskiy added the comment: Hey Nick, Sorry for the long delay. Unfortunately Python isn't my main work language anymore so working on this has proved to be quite a context switch. I'm going to try to finish this up now. The attached patch implements a new pattern for wrap

[issue28535] round seems to provide floor, not proper rounding

2016-10-25 Thread Mike Williamson
New submission from Mike Williamson: Ran a test that I expected to pass. When the test failed, I was struck by the strange (incorrect) assertion claim when using unittest.assertAlmostEqual: AssertionError: 32.78 != 32.775 within 2 places Uhmm... yes it does! I delved in, discovering that

[issue26388] Disabling changing sys.argv[0] with runpy.run_module(...alter_sys=True)

2016-10-29 Thread Mike Kaplinskiy
Mike Kaplinskiy added the comment: Hey Nick, Definitely agree that this refactor is big enough to try adding target modules. There's a somewhat hidden feature in the second patch that does this: `use_globals_from_sys_modules` takes `sys.globals` from the `sys.modules` entry for the m

[issue42173] Drop Solaris support

2020-10-30 Thread Mike La Spina
Mike La Spina added the comment: I suspect the download stats are not a full indication of usage on “SunOS” based on download stats. The bits are preinstalled. I do use it frequently via Illumos. Please support the platform. Regards, Mike -- nosy: +michael.laspina

<    2   3   4   5   6   7