Barry Warsaw said:
> On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 15:27, Tim Hicks wrote:
>
>> sorry to bother you again. It seems no one has anything to say about
>> the
>> email I sent to the email-sig list. I resent it just in case people
>> missed it over Christmas.
>>
>> Am I talking nonsense or is there just no interest/prospect of these
>> sorts
>> of things getting into the email package?
>
> Neither actually. I think there /is/ interest in these kinds of things,
> but nobody has done it and no one has any brilliant ideas. I know that
> I don't ;) and unfortunately I have no time to spend on this right now.
Thanks for the reply... it's nice to know I wasn't talking nonsense :-).
> If you're coming to Pycon, you might sign up for the email-sig sprint,
> which I would like to have. This could certainly be one of the topics
> for that sprint.
I'm in the UK, and only a hobbyist, so can't really justify getting to pycon.
Wrt persisting messages, am I correct to assume that you would *not*
accept a patch that adds the following to email.Message.Message?
def _persist(self):
pass
... and that also arranges for this to be called at the end of all Message
mutators? If I am right, is that because such a mechanism would be too
ZODB specific?
Wrt providing an optional factory for message subparts, is it correct to
say that the problem is that code that generates the internal structure of
Message instances is spread around - in different parsers etc? Or are
there other difficulties?
cheers,
tim
_______________________________________________
Email-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
Your options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/email-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
