Message169069
| Author |
vinay.sajip |
| Recipients |
eric.araujo, pitrou, tobin.baker, vinay.sajip |
| Date |
2012年08月24日.18:53:48 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1345834429.15.0.961890546176.issue15710@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
type(-2**31) is long for 2.5 and 2.6 as well as 2.7. The check was added as a response to #6314, to catch incorrect values being passed as levels.
It could be argued that -2**31 is not a sensible log level. While int and long are supposed to be interchangeable for most purposes, isn't this a reasonable case where you shouldn't need to support long? If you feel not, what scenarios do you believe lie outside the "most purposes"? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年08月24日 18:53:49 | vinay.sajip | set | recipients:
+ vinay.sajip, pitrou, eric.araujo, tobin.baker |
| 2012年08月24日 18:53:49 | vinay.sajip | set | messageid: <1345834429.15.0.961890546176.issue15710@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年08月24日 18:53:48 | vinay.sajip | link | issue15710 messages |
| 2012年08月24日 18:53:48 | vinay.sajip | create |
|