At 03:44 PM 5/29/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:29, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 29.05.2010 21:06, schrieb P.J. Eby:
>>
>> At 08:45 PM 5/29/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In it he says that PEP 382 is being deferred until it can address PEP
302 l
On 5/29/2010 6:39 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
It is not the product of oversight.
I am actually glad, in a sense, that it was not casual whim. ;-)
I do not like the change, since it moves streams back further away from
Python's sequence model, but I withdraw the request for reversion in 3.1.3.
On 5/28/2010 11:41 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
However, it may be worth modifying the policy to ensure that such
exceptional bug fixes be mentioned prominently in the release notes and
on the download page for that maintenance release.
A sentence like "The behavior of it.X.truncate has been intent
On 5/29/2010 6:20 AM, Colin H wrote:
Perhaps the next step is to re-open the issue? If it is seen as a bug,
it would be great to see a fix in 2.6+ -
For the purpose of bugfix releases, a 'bug' is a discrepancy between doc
and behavior. Every new feature is seen as a 'design bug' by someone.
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 15:56, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 09:29 PM 5/29/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>
>> Am 29.05.2010 21:06, schrieb P.J. Eby:
>>>
>>> At 08:45 PM 5/29/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
> In it he says that PEP 382 is being deferred until it can address PEP
> 302
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 00:40, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 03:44 PM 5/29/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:29, "Martin v. Löwis"
>> wrote:
>> > Am 29.05.2010 21:06, schrieb P.J. Eby:
>> >>
>> >> At 08:45 PM 5/29/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>
>> In it he s
At 05:59 PM 5/30/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
Is it wise to modify __path__ post-import? Today people can make sure
that __path__ is set to what they want before potentially reading it
in their __init__ module by making the pkgutil.extend_path() call
first. This would actually defer to after t
At 06:18 PM 5/30/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 00:40, P.J. Eby wrote:
>
> Which would completely break one of the major use cases of the
PEP, which is
> precisely to ensure that you can install two pieces of code to the same
> namespace without either one overwriting
