Just van Rossum wrote:
> While I appreciate that there are maintained pure Python versions of
> those modules, as a user it irritates me that I have the choice. The
> argument so far for not replacing StringIO with cStringIO was that
> they're subtly incompatible (mostly StringIO's "feature" to sup
On 4/4/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm in agreement with the sentiment of keeping the Python code though
> -- it's incredibly useful for example in Jython and IronPython.
> Perhaps we should switch to a naming scheme where we have a "pickle"
> module that you're supposed to
On 4/4/06, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006, Just van Rossum wrote:
> > Has there been any discussion yet about StringIO vs cStringIO and pickle
> > vs cPickle?
>
> Now there is!
>
> > While I appreciate that there are maintained pure Python versions of
> > those modules, as a
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006, Just van Rossum wrote:
>
> Has there been any discussion yet about StringIO vs cStringIO and pickle
> vs cPickle?
Now there is!
> While I appreciate that there are maintained pure Python versions of
> those modules, as a user it irritates me that I have the choice. The
> arg
Has there been any discussion yet about StringIO vs cStringIO and pickle
vs cPickle?
While I appreciate that there are maintained pure Python versions of
those modules, as a user it irritates me that I have the choice. The
argument so far for not replacing StringIO with cStringIO was that
they're
