On 11:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like this, except one issue: I really don't like the .local
directory. I don't see any compelling reason why this needs to be
~/.local/lib/ -- IMO it should just be ~/lib/. There's no need to hide
it from view, especially since the user is expected to manag
On 01:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everybody. I apologize for writing yet another lengthy screed about
a simple directory naming issue. I feel strongly about it but I
encourate anyone who doesn't to simply skip it.
First, s
On 03:49 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stand corrected on a few points. You've convinced me that ~/lib/ is
wrong. But I still don't like ~/.local/; not in the last place because
it's not any more local than any other dot files or directories. The
"symmetry" with /usr/local/ is pretty weak, and
On 05:53 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 1, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Interesting. I'm of the opposite opinion. I really don't want
Python dictating to me what my home directory should look like (a dot
file doesn't count because so many tools conspire to hide it from
me).
On 3 May, 11:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 3, 2008, at 7:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred asked for a --prefix flag (which is what I was voting on). I
don't
really care what you do by default as long as you give me a way to do
it
differently.
What's most interesting (to me) i
On 12:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the most sane contribution I've seen so far :).
See attached patch: python3_bytes_filename.patch
Using the patch, you will get:
- open() support bytes
- listdir(unicode) -> only unicode, *skip* invalid filenames
(as asked by Guido)
Forgive me fo
On 02:32 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like maybe there should be some 2to3 fixers in here
somewhere,
too? Not necessarily as part of this patch, but somewhere related? I
don't
know
On 05:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:59 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 02:32 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the absence of a 2.6 getcwdb, perhaps the fixer could just drop the
"benefit of the doubt" case? It could always be added to 2.7, and the
parity relea
On 30 Sep, 09:22 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:00 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin, I don't understand why you are in favor of storing raw by
On 03:32 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 10:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you clarify what proposal you are supporting for Python:
Sure. Neither of your descriptions is terribly accurate, but I'll try
to explain.
1) Two sets of APIs, one returning unicode strings, an
On 03:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm actually sort of liking this idea. A Pathname class, for
convenience
a subtype of String, but containing the underlying binary
representation
used by the OS. Even non-unicode pathnames could be represented.
On the one hand, I agree with you - excep
11 matches
Mail list logo
