Issue10271 - warnings.showwarning should allow any callable object - request commiter
Hello all, Can any of you core devs have a look at http://bugs.python.org/issue10271. It seems Brett is really busy right now and this uncontroversial (AFAICT) one liner only needs someone to review it and commit it. The pb is, it's holding me back a little bit, and I really would like to have it in the next 3.2 release if possible. Thanks for your help, lekma
Just so people know, I went ahead and fixed this for 3.3 (but not for 3.2 since it changes the API in a subtle way). On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 01:33, lekmalek <lekmalek@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Can any of you core devs have a look at http://bugs.python.org/issue10271. It seems Brett is really busy right now and this uncontroversial (AFAICT) one liner only needs someone to review it and commit it. The pb is, it's holding me back a little bit, and I really would like to have it in the next 3.2 release if possible.
Thanks for your help,
lekma _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:19:59 -0700 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Just so people know, I went ahead and fixed this for 3.3 (but not for 3.2 since it changes the API in a subtle way). Yeah, but that shouldn't break anything.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your help, I'm happy it's in 3.3. lekma
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 01:33, lekmalek <lekmalek@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Can any of you core devs have a look at http://bugs.python.org/issue10271. It seems Brett is really busy right now and this uncontroversial (AFAICT) one liner only needs someone to review it and commit it. The pb is, it's holding me back a little bit, and I really would like to have it in the next 3.2 release if possible.
Thanks for your help,
lekma _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 23:05, lekmalek <lekmalek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:19:59 -0700 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Just so people know, I went ahead and fixed this for 3.3 (but not for 3.2 since it changes the API in a subtle way). Yeah, but that shouldn't break anything.
It won't break any _existing_ code, but it could cause compatibility for _future_ code. Imagine I wrote some code for 3.2.2 where this change was backported and worked *only* with this fix. That would mean my code would fail in any Python 3.2.1 or older interpreter. That's simply not acceptable as that means that code would be magically busted for some versions of Python 3.2 but not all of them.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your help, I'm happy it's in 3.3.
I'm just sorry it took so long to resolve. Life has been crazy for me in 2011. -Brett
lekma
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 01:33, lekmalek <lekmalek@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Can any of you core devs have a look at http://bugs.python.org/issue10271. It seems Brett is really busy right now and this uncontroversial (AFAICT) one liner only needs someone to review it and commit it. The pb is, it's holding me back a little bit, and I really would like to have it in the next 3.2 release if possible.
Thanks for your help,
lekma _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org
On 7/21/2011 2:15 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
It won't break any _existing_ code, but it could cause compatibility for _future_ code. Imagine I wrote some code for 3.2.2 where this change was backported and worked *only* with this fix. That would mean my code would fail in any Python 3.2.1 or older interpreter. That's simply not acceptable as that means that code would be magically busted for some versions of Python 3.2 but not all of them.
In other words, Python 3.2 is a fixed language, cpython3.2.z's are intended to be increasingly better implementations of that language, although regressions can and do happen (as with issue 12540). -- Terry Jan Reedy
participants (3)
-
Brett Cannon -
lekmalek -
Terry Reedy