On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:10:25 -0500, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 21:07 +0000, Paul Moore wrote: > > On 27 February 2012 20:39, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote: > > > Note that u'' literals are sort of the tip of the iceberg here; > > > supporting them will obviously not make development under the subset an > > > order of magnitude less sucky, just a tiny little bit less sucky. There > > > are other extremely annoying things, like str(bytes) returning the repr > > > of a bytestring on Python 3. That's almost as irritating as the absence > > > of u'' literals, but we have to evaluate one thing at a time. > > > > So. Am I misunderstanding here, or are you suggesting that this > > particular PEP doesn't help you much, but if it's accepted, it > > represents "the thin end of the wedge" for a series of subsequent PEPs > > suggesting fixes for a number of other "extremely annoying things"...? > > > > I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's certainly what it sounded > > like to me! > > I'm way too lazy. The political wrangling is just too draining > (especially over something so trivial). But I will definitely support > other proposals that make it easier to straddle, sure.
"tip of the iceberg", eh? Or the nose of the camel in the tent. This pushes me in the direction of a -1 vote. --David _______________________________________________ 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
