➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author oylenshpeegul
Recipients ethan.furman, jcea, nadeem.vawda, oylenshpeegul, vajrasky, vstinner
Date 2013-10-10.21:45:24
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAADi5ctCJaO3D5gGw1-r16_HYZYQBW-sVdfysQsnCv_A-_BRLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1381401105.97.0.280541558417.issue19201@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content 
Okay, I just made similar issues for gzip (issue19222) and bz2
(issue19223). It's weird how different these three patches are! We're
essentially doing the same thing: "please allow the x option to pass
through to builtins.open." Why don't these three modules look more alike?

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Vajrasky Kok <report@bugs.python.org>wrote:

>
> Vajrasky Kok added the comment:
>
> Here is the unit test for Tim Heaney's work. There is a test that
> explicitly tests that we get error when opening in 'x' mode. Also, this
> test is only for lzma. I think we should create separate tickets for other
> compression methods.
>
> ----------
> keywords: +patch
> nosy: +vajrasky
> Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file32030/add_x_mode_to_lzma.patch
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19201>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2013-10-10 21:45:24oylenshpeegulsetrecipients: + oylenshpeegul, jcea, vstinner, nadeem.vawda, ethan.furman, vajrasky
2013-10-10 21:45:24oylenshpeegullinkissue19201 messages
2013-10-10 21:45:24oylenshpeegulcreate