Hi, Jeff,
Von: Jeff Hardy [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Markus Schaber
> wrote:
> > Hmm, maybe we could put the host/embedder info I suggested in the other
> mail there.
>
> Yeah, and things like which which CLR version (3.5, 4.0), implementation
> (MS, Mono), subs
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
>> A plain dict would be certainly be easier to implement, just using the
>> builtin. Exposing an immutable dict type in CPython could open a can
>> of worms, but if it makes sense we could cons
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
> A plain dict would be certainly be easier to implement, just using the
> builtin. Exposing an immutable dict type in CPython could open a can
> of worms, but if it makes sense we could consider it.
If it's going to be harder for CPython, then I
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
>> Good to know. Is your preference for a named tuple instead of a
>> normal class? I'd rather not expose sys.implementation as a sequence
>> type, but mostly I want to end up with something tha
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Markus Schaber
wrote:
> Hmm, maybe we could put the host/embedder info I suggested in the other mail
> there.
Yeah, and things like which which CLR version (3.5, 4.0),
implementation (MS, Mono), subset (Silverlight, MonoTouch, MonoDroid),
what host it's running un
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
>> I'd strongly prefer the named-tuple approach, like version_info. The
>> metadata attribute being a dict is fine (although the PEP doesn't
>> actually call that out in "Required Values" section; I had to search
>> to find out if it was actually a
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> The
> metadata attribute being a dict is fine (although the PEP doesn't
> actually call that out in "Required Values" section; I had to search
> to find out if it was actually a dict).
Thanks for pointing that out. I had certainly intended on s
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Markus Schaber
wrote:
> Hi, Jeff,
>
>> Von: Jeff Hardy
>> > Any feedback would be very helpful, particularly with regard to the
>> > decision on the type of sys.implementation and the constraints on
>> > sys.implementation.version. Thanks.
>>
>> I'd strongly prefer
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm looking for feedback on PEP 421: "Adding sys.implementation". The
>> idea came up in 2009 and garnered positive feedback, but didn't go
>> anywhere. I've revived it and am h
Hi, Jeff,
> Von: Jeff Hardy
> > Any feedback would be very helpful, particularly with regard to the
> > decision on the type of sys.implementation and the constraints on
> > sys.implementation.version. Thanks.
>
> I'd strongly prefer the named-tuple approach, like version_info. The
> metadata at
Hi, Eric,
> Von Eric Snow
> I'm looking for feedback on PEP 421: "Adding sys.implementation". The
> idea came up in 2009 and garnered positive feedback, but didn't go
> anywhere. I've revived it and am hoping to get it worked out in time for
> Python 3.3.
>
> Any feedback would be very helpful
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for feedback on PEP 421: "Adding sys.implementation". The
> idea came up in 2009 and garnered positive feedback, but didn't go
> anywhere. I've revived it and am hoping to get it worked out in time
> for Python 3.3.
First o
Hi,
I'm looking for feedback on PEP 421: "Adding sys.implementation". The
idea came up in 2009 and garnered positive feedback, but didn't go
anywhere. I've revived it and am hoping to get it worked out in time
for Python 3.3.
Any feedback would be very helpful, particularly with regard to the
d
13 matches
Mail list logo
