Armin Rigo wrote: > Hi, > > The struct module is too lazy in checking for overflows (it only checks some > cases on some architectures). See patch #1038854. The question is: can we > make it strict this late in the 2.4 release process? This *will* break some > user code; the proof is that it breaks some standard library code, e.g. > gzip.py, which uses a signed typecode when it really means an unsigned one. > > Fixing it in 2.4 would be nice, but on the other hand we could postpone it for > the 2.5 trunk; people trying 2.5 early will see the problem quickly. We could > add warnings for 2.4 but that looks overkill. Or we could just go ahead and > break existing buggy code with 2.4b3. Opinions? I think I'd prefer to delay it until 2.5. This is going to break a _lot_ of code. Adding DeprecationWarnings for 2.4 would be more appropriate, imho. -- Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
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