At 12:55 PM 9/21/2010 -0400, Ian Bicking wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Chris McDonough
<<mailto:chr...@plope.com>chr...@plope.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:09 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:
> While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would
> be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3
> stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle
> out implementation questions.
If a WSGI-1-compatible protocol seems more sensible to folks, I'm
personally happy to defer discussion on PEP 444 or any other
backwards-incompatible proposal.
I think both make sense, making WSGI 1 sensible for Python 3 (as
well as other small errata like the size hint) doesn't detract from
PEP 444 at all, IMHO.
Yep. I agree. I do, however, want to get these amendments settled
and make sure they get carried over to whatever spec is the successor
to PEP 333. I've had a lot of trouble following exactly what was
changed in 444, and I'm a tad worried that several new ambiguities
may be being introduced. So, solidifying 333 a bit might be helpful
if it gives a good baseline against which to diff 444 (or whatever).
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
