Briefly (from the NEWS file):
- Updates for the email package:
+ All deprecated APIs that in email 2.x issued warnings have been removed:
_encoder argument to the MIMEText constructor, Message.add_payload(),
Utils.dump_address_pair(), Utils.decode(), Utils.encode()
+ New deprecations: Generator.__call__(), Message.get_type(),
Message.get_main_type(), Message.get_subtype(), the 'strict' argument to
the Parser constructor. These will be removed in email 3.1.
+ Support for Python earlier than 2.3 has been removed (see PEP 291).
+ All defect classes have been renamed to end in 'Defect'.
+ Some FeedParser fixes; also a MultipartInvariantViolationDefect will be
added to messages that claim to be multipart but really aren't.
+ Updates to documentation.
deque_item(): a performance bug: the linked list of blocks was followed
from the left in most cases, because the test (i < (deque->len >> 1)) was
after "i %= BLOCKLEN".
deque_clear(): replaced a call to deque_len() with deque->len; not sure what
this call was here for, nor if all compilers under the sun would inline it.
deque_traverse(): I belive that it could be called by the GC when the deque
has leftblock==rightblock==NULL, because it is tracked before the first block
is allocated (though closely before). Still, a C extension module subclassing
deque could provide its own tp_alloc that could trigger a GC collection after
the PyObject_GC_Track()...
deque_richcompare(): rewrote to cleanly check for end-of-iterations instead of
relying on deque.__iter__().next() to succeed exactly len(deque) times -- an
assumption which can break if deques are subclassed. Added a test.
I wonder if the length should be explicitely bounded to INT_MAX, with
OverflowErrors, as in listobject.c. On 64-bit machines, adding more than
INT_MAX in the deque will result in trouble. (Note to anyone/me fixing
this: carefully check for overflows if len is close to INT_MAX in the
following functions: deque_rotate(), deque_item(), deque_ass_item())
The previous approach was too easily fooled (a rotate() sufficed).
* Use it->counter to determine when iteration is complete. The
previous approach was too complex.
* Strengthen an assertion and add a comment here or there.
* Change the centering by one to make it possible to test the module
with BLOCKLEN's as low as two. Testing small blocks makes end-point
errors surface more readily.
repr(66.6) == "66.6", so doubt that the claimed output has ever been seen.
Changed it to 66.25 everywhere, and manually verified that the new claimed
output is correct.