Message69572
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
Rhamphoryncus, amaury.forgeotdarc, benjamin.peterson, gvanrossum, pitrou |
| Date |
2008年07月11日.23:20:30 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.814565e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1215818423.9784.8.camel@fsol> |
| In-reply-to |
<1215814702.83.0.234285985293.issue3112@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
Le vendredi 11 juillet 2008 à 22:18 +0000, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc a
écrit :
> I committed r64881, which invalidates your patch a bit :-|
Apparently you committed in trunk rather than py3k? Could you svnmerge
into py3k as well? Then it should be quite easy to rework my patch
around it.
> BTW, I don't like your comment "Can't be bothered to check all those
> PyFile_WriteString() calls".
It's not my comment, it was already there. I agree it doesn't sound very
meticulous. :-)
> In general, it is not a good idea to execute python code with an
> exception set, this leads to subtle problems, and some "XXX undetected
> error" prints in debug mode.
> Chaining several calls to PyDict_SetItem
> for example is usually not a problem, but PyFile_WriteString does
> execute python code in python3.0.
Well, as said above, I just kept the original method of doing things...
If you think of a simple solution to make things better (and a test case
to validate it), I'm open to integrating it in the patch. |
|