[Stackless] stackess for 2.7
senn at maya.com
Fri Jun 25 14:42:43 CEST 2010
On Jun 25, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
> I'll have a look when I'm able.
> Wrt TaskletExit, yes it makes perfect sense. Like SystemExit, it is an exception that you normally don't want to handle. So exception clauses like:
> except Exception:
> will work as expected, and yet allow tasklets to be killed without fuss.
Agree... though I was talking about BaseException (rather then Exception).
i.e. do we want this:
| +-- BufferError
| +-- BufferError
Unless there is some good reason for the latter, I think we want the former, no?
I can't think of a good reason -- and it might be confusing to someone who is doing something
where they catch SystemExit (probably in a 'finally'), expecting to see it only once...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: stackless-bounces at stackless.com [mailto:stackless-
>> bounces at stackless.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Senn
>> Sent: 24. júní 2010 16:13
>> To: The Stackless Python Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Stackless] stackess for 2.7
>> Progress - it's now building, but I do see regular python test fails
>> (compared to stock 2.7.rc2) on:
>> test_email test_functools test_pep352 test_pickletools test_sax
>> test_sys test_tk test_ttk_guionly
>> I'm looking into them. In particular so far:
>> test_pep352 fails because a text file in the test is missing a
>> reference to TaskletExit.
>> Easy to fix, though it also raises an issue about whether TaskletExit
>> should really be derived
>> from SystemExit or the BaseException class.
>> test_functools is related the test_pickletools fail which might have
>> something to do with
>> the other pickling problem that Kristjan mentioned. K- Does
>> test_pickletools succeed for you?
>> The problem seems to have to do with some wrapping of a function by
>> test_email and text_sax have to do with line endings (\n vs \r\n) --
>> which is odd and troublesome...
>> and I'm looking more...
>> test_sys has to do with the slot wrapper object size (for int.__add__)
>> being 44 bytes instead of 40.
>> (This might be correct for stackless -- it appears this test is
>> commented out in release26_maint)
>> and I haven't check the tk stuff yet at all...
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
More information about the Stackless