On 2017-09-21, at 2:13, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> OK I opened a ticket with a plan, after discussing with Mark Williams.
>
> 1. Make a custom class that implements the Sequence ABC and pretends to be
> sized the old size.
> 2. Internally all access will be moved to attributes
> 3. All sequence metho
OK I opened a ticket with a plan, after discussing with Mark Williams.
1. Make a custom class that implements the Sequence ABC and pretends to be
sized the old size.
2. Internally all access will be moved to attributes
3. All sequence methods will be marked as Deprecated. We'll kill them in a
year
On 2017-09-19, at 15:49, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:51 AM ex vito wrote:
>
> Other than that, again, per that section's rules, not being a commiter
> myself, I'm in no position to approve such a change. I wonder, however, how
> "urgent" such a final change is to you and
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:51 AM ex vito wrote:
> Other than that, again, per that section's rules, not being a commiter
> myself, I'm in no position to approve such a change. I wonder, however, how
> "urgent" such a final change is to you and why a deprecation cycle does not
> fit your purpose (
On 2017-09-18, at 16:35, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:44 AM ex vito wrote:
> Sidenote: A quick, mostly backwards compatible, change could probably add cwd
> to the existing per-process tuple in self.processes as an extra item,
> couldn't it?
>
> No. Most usage of this tuple
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:44 AM ex vito wrote:
> Sidenote: A quick, mostly backwards compatible, change could probably add
> cwd to the existing per-process tuple in self.processes as an extra item,
> couldn't it?
No. Most usage of this tuple is unpacking, which makes it really really not
backw
> The options I see:
>
> 1. Move processes to a private attribute, deprecate processors, then do it.
From an abstraction standpoint, that makes sense. Probably the same could be
said about the other process related dict attributes like protocols, delay,
etc., though. They all seem to be "name"
Hello all,
For context, please read bullet one of Glyph's comment on
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/3691#comment:9
I am in a similar situation to JP 8 years ago -- I want to add a working
directory argument to addProcess, so that processes that care (usually for
silly reasons) about their
