On 10/3/06, Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/2/06, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I asked for input from people on which would take less time. Almost all the answers I got was that the the C code was delicate but that
it was workable.Several people said they wished
On 10/2/06, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why I asked for input from people on which would take less time.
Almost all the answers I got was that the the C code was delicate but that
it was workable. Several people said they wished for a Python
implementation, but hardly
In the interest of time I have decided to go ahead and do the PEP 302 phase 2 work in C. I fully expect to tackle rewriting import in Python in my spare time after I finish this work since I will be much more familiar with how the whole import machinery works and it sounds like a fun challenge.
At 01:01 PM 10/2/2006 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
In the interest of time I have decided to go ahead and do the PEP 302
phase 2 work in C.
Just FYI, it's not possible (so far as I know) to implement phase 2 while
maintaining backward compatibility with existing 2.x code. So this work
shouldn't
On 10/2/06, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just FYI, it's not possible (so far as I know) to implement phase 2 while
maintaining backward compatibility with existing 2.x code. So this work
shouldn't go back to the 2.x trunk without discussion of those issues.
While that's a fair
On 10/2/06, Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/2/06, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:[SNIP] I'm surprised, however, that you think working on this in C is going to be *less* time than it would take to simply replace __import__ with a Python
function that reimplements PEP 302...That
At 03:48 PM 10/2/2006 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
On 10/2/06, Paul Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 10/2/06, Phillip J. Eby
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
I'm surprised, however, that you think working on this in C is going to be
*less* time
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:27:07PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
Yes, I'm quite surprised at how much has appeared in pkgutil. The
what's new entry is very terse, and the module documentation itself
hasn't been updated to mention the new stuff.
These two things are related, of course; I couldn't
At 08:21 PM 10/2/2006 -0400, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:27:07PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
Yes, I'm quite surprised at how much has appeared in pkgutil. The
what's new entry is very terse, and the module documentation itself
hasn't been updated to mention the new stuff.
