The bump to Python 2.6 seemed to go OK. So, I think it's time to finish
the transition and bump the minimum to Python 2.7.
Per the previous discussion on this list, I don't believe we have any
outstanding objections. So, I propose we move forward with this as soon
as we have confirmation that
On a side note, what can we do about checking for unusually verbose or
inefficient constructs? Examples:
static const PRUnichar* kResetBackupDirectory =
NS_LITERAL_STRING(resetBackupDirectory).get();
This is technically incorrect on systems that don't support a 16-bit
char type (short
On 12/1/2012 4:28 PM, Neil wrote:
On a side note, what can we do about checking for unusually verbose or
inefficient constructs? Examples:
We could create a compiler plugin that examines the AST for known
badness. See bug 733873.
___
dev-platform
On 12/1/12 4:28 PM, Neil wrote:
On a side note, what can we do about checking for unusually verbose or
inefficient constructs? Examples:
I don't think this has anything to to with sr policy, nor should it.
Justin
___
dev-platform mailing list
Gregory Szorc wrote:
If there are any objections, please voice them now.
Can we re-post this as an entirely new thread, out of shear luck I
noticed it, though its buried in the middle of my threaded view for way
back in September. In a thread I have long since chosen to ignore since
I knew the
5 matches
Mail list logo
