test_commands does not work on IRIX
It assumes the output of "ls /bin/ls" is a line
that starts with a '-'. On IRIX that file is
a symbolic link, so the first character is an l.
This causes test_getstatus to fail.
dictionary instead of building a new one, and provide an overridable method
to allow subclasses to catch ADD_INFO records that are not part of the
initial block of ADD_INFO records created by the profiler itself.
And SF patch 473223 -- infinite getattr loop
Wrap select() and poll() calls with try/except for EINTR. If EINTR is
raised, treat as a response where no fd is ready.
In dispatcher constructor, make sure self.socket is always
initialized.
outer level, the iterator protocol is used for memory-efficiency (the
outer sequence may be very large if fully materialized); at the inner
level, PySequence_Fast() is used for time-efficiency (these should
always be sequences of length 2).
dictobject.c, new functions PyDict_{Merge,Update}FromSeq2. These are
wholly analogous to PyDict_{Merge,Update}, but process a sequence-of-2-
sequences argument instead of a mapping object. For now, I left these
functions file static, so no corresponding doc changes. It's tempting
to change dict.update() to allow a sequence-of-2-seqs argument too.
Also changed the name of dictionary's keyword argument from "mapping"
to "x". Got a better name? "mapping_or_sequence_of_pairs" isn't
attractive, although more so than "mosop" <wink>.
abstract.h, abstract.tex: Added new PySequence_Fast_GET_SIZE function,
much faster than going thru the all-purpose PySequence_Size.
libfuncs.tex:
- Document dictionary().
- Fiddle tuple() and list() to admit that their argument is optional.
- The long-winded repetitions of "a sequence, a container that supports
iteration, or an iterator object" is getting to be a PITA. Many
months ago I suggested factoring this out into "iterable object",
where the definition of that could include being explicit about
generators too (as is, I'm not sure a reader outside of PythonLabs
could guess that "an iterator object" includes a generator call).
- Please check my curly braces -- I'm going blind <0.9 wink>.
abstract.c, PySequence_Tuple(): When PyObject_GetIter() fails, leave
its error msg alone now (the msg it produces has improved since
PySequence_Tuple was generalized to accept iterable objects, and
PySequence_Tuple was also stomping on the msg in cases it shouldn't
have even before PyObject_GetIter grew a better msg).
the separating semi-colon shows up on a continuation line (legal, but
weird).
Bug reported and fixed by Matthew Cowles. Test case and sample email
included.
non-standard but common types. Including Martin's suggestion to add
rejected non-standard types from patch #438790. Specifically,
guess_type(), guess_extension(): Both the functions and the methods
grow an optional "strict" flag, defaulting to true, which determines
whether to recognize non-standard, but commonly found types or not.
Also, I sorted, reformatted, and culled duplicates from the big
types_map dictionary. Note that there are a few non-equivalent
duplicates (e.g. .cdf and .xls) for which the first will just get
thrown away. I didn't remove those though.
Finally, use of the module as a script as grown the -l and -e options
to toggle strictness and to do guess_extension(), respectively.
Doc and unittest updates too.
As the comments in the module implied, pyclbr was easily confused by
"strange stuff" inside single- (but not triple-) quoted strings. It
isn't anymore. Its behavior remains flaky in the presence of nested
functions and classes, though.
Bugfix candidate.
ThreadingMixIn/TCPServer forgets close (Max Neunhöffer).
This ensures that handle_error() and close_request() are called when
an error occurs in the thread.
(I am not applying the second chunk of the patch, which moved the
finish() call into the finally clause in BaseRequestHandler's __init__
method; that would be a semantic change that I cannot accept at this
point - the data would be sent even if the handler raised an
exception.)
used by the weakref code since he didn't like the word "referencable".
Is it really necessary to be more specific than to test for TypeError here,
though?
