> >>> Guido van Rossum wrote > > I've got a possible patch for the send() problem. I'd like review of > > the patch and the related issues before I apply it. I'd also like > > more guidance regarding the suitability of this patch for the 2.1.2 > > bugfix release. (It fixes a real bug, but can sometime lead to > > different behavior, and adds a new interpretation of the absence of an > > optional argument, which can be considered a feature.) > It's a tough decision, because this really _is_ the cleaner solution, > but it does stand a slight chance of breaking code, and it's also something > that can be worked around in the std library. At the moment I'm planning to > just fix the std library modules instead - as these are definitely broken. > The added functionality of python's send() is very useful, but it's a > feature, not a bug :) > > Anthony After ample discussion, the PythonLabs crew didn't think my patch would be safe enough -- see the SF tracker entry for a full discussion. Instead, we decided to fix the standard library to always check the return value of send(). Can you help? (If you check in a fix to the 2.1 maintenance branch, you can mark it as "propagate to trunk please".) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4