On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Mark Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/08/2014 14:23, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> Chatting to an experienced C/C++ developer at PyCon AU today, they >> were worried that their *Python* skills might not be good enough to >> contribute to CPython. It reminded me of an idea I had a while ago, >> but forgot to suggest: adding a keyword specifically to indicate >> issues that require some C coding. >> >> My main rationale is that there are some issues that are likely to be >> pretty easy *if you already know C*. Adding the extra keyword means we >> can mark: >> >> - easy Python only issues (just the 'easy' keyword) >> - easy C or C+Python issues ('easy' and 'requires C' keywords) >> - tricky Python only issues (no keywords) >> - trick C or C+Python issues (just the 'requires C' keyword) >> >> I'm not particularly enamoured of that specific keyword name, so I'm >> interested in two specific kinds of feedback: >> >> 1. Does the extra keyword sound useful? >> 2. Any other suggestions for a name? >> >> Cheers, >> Nick. >> > > +1 as a complete no brainer from my viewpoint. As an example wouldn't it > help here http://bugs.python.org/issue13822 ? > > 'needs C' simply because it's slightly shorter or 'C skills'?
needs_c is better, because it is more easily exportable into external tracking systems that use real words as keywords. Also, it is less fragile (more accurate) when used in search queries (especially with external search and through OpenSearch API). The idea is good. _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
