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+ - a number of options which
will not break backward compatibility have been put forward - cheers,
Colin
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Reid Kleckner r...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, May
On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:31:02 -0400
Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
I think it shows how developers can get worked over if they are
insufficiently vigilant.
1) I completely agree, and adduce as evidence the fact that something
like this always seems to happen when the rule is broken;
On 29/05/10 20:20, 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+ - a number of options which
will not break backward compatibility have been put forward - cheers,
A new feature request requesting a closure mode for
On May 28, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/05/10 10:19, Jesse Noller wrote:
In my opinion, it is high time for the std lib to pay more
attention to
the final Zen:
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
Yes, your suggestion for
On 29/05/10 22:46, Jesse Noller wrote:
On May 28, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Since this topic keeps coming up, some reasoning along these lines
should go into PEP 3148.
I'll type something up this weekend and shoot it to Brian for inclusion.
I was hoping to be
Last night Barry Warsaw, Jason Coombs, and I met to work on implementing
PEP 382. As part of my research, I came across this email from Martin:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-May/089316.html
In it he says that PEP 382 is being deferred until it can address PEP
302 loaders. I
In it he says that PEP 382 is being deferred until it can address PEP
302 loaders. I can't find any follow-up to this. I don't see any
discussion in PEP 382 about PEP 302 loaders, so I assume this issue was
never resolved. Does it need to be before PEP 382 is implemented? Are we
wasting our time
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 loaders. I can't find any follow-up to this. I don't see any
discussion in PEP 382 about PEP 302 loaders, so I assume this issue
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 17:12, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 08:28:46 am Vinay Sajip wrote:
I've not seen this mentioned, but on such a long thread I might have
missed it: we already have a __future__ module, as in
from __future__ import with_statement
and
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:29, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de 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 loaders. I can't find any follow-up to this. I don't
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 loaders. I can't find any follow-up to this. I don't see any
discussion in
11 matches
Mail list logo
