Is there any way to compile python (3.1.3, in case it matters) without
ssl support? OpenSSL is on my system, and configure finds it, but I
can't find a way to tell configure to explicitly ignore it.
I need a version of python without ssl for trade compliance reasons (I
don't make the dumb rules, I
Hei!
I'm a Python developer in Stavanger, Norway looking for other Python
users/developers/etc. who might be interested in starting a local user
group. Anyone interested? This group might actually evolve into a
general programming/computer group, depending on the mix of people,
but I think that's
I've noticed that several (many?) python functions seem to clear the
error/exception indicators when they're called from a C/C++ program.
For example, both PyImport_ImportModule and traceback.extract_tb()
(called via the function call methods) do this: if error indicators
are set prior to their cal
s issue by checking function calls for failure?
Austin
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Gabriel Genellina
wrote:
> En Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:37:09 -0300, Austin Bingham
> escribió:
>
>> I've noticed that several (many?) python functions seem to clear the
>> error/exception indic
ption
separately. The predicate that "a successful function won't modify the
error indicators" appears to be wrong, however, and I've modified my
code accordingly.
Austin
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Gabriel Genellina
wrote:
> En Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:25:14 -0300, Austin
That makes a lot of sense. And if I take the approach that any Py*
function might do this, it actually looks like I can simplify my code
(rather than managing some list of ill-behaved functions or
something.) Thanks!
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Duncan Booth
wrote:
> Austin Bingham wr
I'm looking for the proper way to "walk" a graph of python objects. My
specific task is to find all objects of a given type that are referred
to (transitively) by some starting object. My approach has been to
loop through the object's attributes, examining each, and then
recursing on them.
This ap
s, say, 'hash(x.name)' rather than
'hash(x)'.
Is this possible? Am I just thinking about this problem the wrong way?
Admittedly, I'm coming at this from a C++/STL perspective, so perhaps
I'm just missing the obvious. Thanks for any help on this.
Austin Bingham
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
a good one, but it's just not
what I am looking for.
Austin
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Austin Bingham
> wrote:
>> If I understand things correctly, the set class uses hash()
>> universally to calculate hash valu
I guess we see things differently. I think it's quite natural to want
a set of unique objects where "unique" is defined as an operation on
some subset/conflation/etc. of the attributes of the elements. That's
all that the regular set class is, except that it always uses the
hash() function to calcu
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> Austin Bingham wrote:
> This is a POV, but to to me, the set just deals with a very minimal
> protocol - hash-value & equality. Whatever you feed it, it has to cope with
> that. It strikes *me* as odd to ask for somethin
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> Austin Bingham wrote:
> You do. Hashes can collide, and then you need equality. Sets are *based* on
> equality actually, the hash is just one optimization. ...
Right, thanks for clearing that up. Not reading closely enough
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> The context-decider isn't the same thing because it isn't designed yet :)
> And most probably won't ever be. It's just the abstract idea that
> hashing/equality change for one object depending on the circumstances they
> are used in, and t
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Mick Krippendorf wrote:
> Austin Bingham schrieb:
> What you seem to imply is that the hash function imposes some kind of
> uniqueness constraint on the set which uses it. That's just not the
> case, the uniqueness constraint is always the (in-)eq
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Anthony Tolle wrote:
> Why not use a dict? The key would be the object name. Pretty much
> the same behavior as a set (via the key), and you can still easily
> iterate over the objects.
To reiterate, dict only gets me part of what I want. Whereas a set
with uniq
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Gabriel Genellina
wrote:
> En Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:42:20 -0300, Austin Bingham
> escribió:
> I think you didn't understand correctly Anthony Tolle's suggestion:
>
> py> class Foo:
> ... def __init__(self, name): self.name = na
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Anthony Tolle wrote:
> I wrote a quick subclass of set that does something similar, but uses
> just one function for the object uniqueness:
>
> class MySet(set):
> def __init__(self, iterable = (), idfunc = lambda x: x):
> self.idfunc = idfunc
> se
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Austin Bingham wrote:
> I'm feeling really dense about now... What am I missing?
What you're missing is the entire discussion up to this point. I was
looking for a way to use an alternative uniqueness criteria in a set
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Anthony Tolle wrote:
> I think that without a practical example of what this would be used
> for, we're all going to be a little lost on this one.
>
> So far, we've not seen the original problem, only the author's
> preferred method for solving it. My guess is the
Does the 'python' directory contain a file named '__init__.py'? This
is required to let that directory act as a package (see:
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/modules.html#packages); without it,
you'll see the symptoms you're seeing.
Austin
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:56 AM, 7H3LaughingMan wrote:
>
Just to elaborate on Terry's point a bit, sys.path is influenced (in
part) by the PYTHONPATH environment variable. If you find that the
directory containing 'python' is not in sys.path (which you can check
with 'import sys; print sys.path'), add that directory to PYTHONPATH
and try again. This may
I'm trying to get a handle on how python intersects with
crypto-related export control laws in the US and elsewhere. My current
understanding, per the PSF's wiki, is that any crypto related and
potentially export-sensitive code is in the ssl wrapper, and that, in
fact, this only links to the actual
22 matches
Mail list logo
