On 28 February 2018 at 03:15, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/26/2018 11:34 PM, Elias Zamaria wrote:
>
> I don't know how I would feel working on something so general, of use to
>> so many people for lots of different purposes.
>> Do I know enough about all of the use cases and what everyone wants? I
On 02/26/2018 11:34 PM, Elias Zamaria wrote:
Nick, I'm trying to reply to your message, but I can't figure out how.
You mentioned that the PEP needs a "champion". What would that involve? How
much time and effort would it take? What
kinds of decisions would I make?
Being a PEP "champion" inv
Nick, I'm trying to reply to your message, but I can't figure out how.
You mentioned that the PEP needs a "champion". What would that involve? How
much time and effort would it take? What kinds of decisions would I make?
The iterbytes thing in the PEP is something I was wishing for, while
working
On 02/21/2018 06:52 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 22 February 2018 at 08:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
It's too late for 3.7 period, but there's no reason it can't be considered
for 3.8.
Something else the PEP needs is a new champion - my original interest
was to help lower barriers to Python 3 mi
On 22 February 2018 at 08:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It's too late for 3.7 period, but there's no reason it can't be considered
> for 3.8.
Something else the PEP needs is a new champion - my original interest
was to help lower barriers to Python 3 migration, but it's now more
about the general
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> I think the chances of a "byte" object are about as good as the chances of
> a character object
>
probably right.
> (though one can always implement such in C extensions, that wouldn't build
> them into the syntax).
>
I think you could s
It's too late for 3.7 period, but there's no reason it can't be considered
for 3.8.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
>> At this point the PEP itself has not been approved, and is undergoing
>> changes. I don't see an
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> At this point the PEP itself has not been approved, and is undergoing
> changes. I don't see anything happening with it right now while 3.7 is
> going through it's final stages to release. Once 3.7.0 is published we can
> come back to this
This is about some minor changes to the bytes, bytearray, and memoryview
classes. Here is the PEP: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0467/
The page in the bug tracker can be seen at
https://bugs.python.org/issue27923 and the pull request can be seen at
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/3237
I think the chances of a "byte" object are about as good as the chances of
a character object (though one can always implement such in C extensions,
that wouldn't build them into the syntax). The fact that characters are
single-byte strings is responsible for certain anomalies with (e.g.) the
__con
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Elias Zamaria wrote:
> This is about some minor changes to the bytes, bytearray, and memoryview
> classes. Here is the PEP: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0467/
>
> I am waiting for this to be merged, or approved, or whatever is the next
> step. Someone on
On 02/21/2018 11:55 AM, Elias Zamaria wrote:
This is about some minor changes to the bytes, bytearray, and memoryview
classes. Here is the PEP:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0467/
The page in the bug tracker can be seen at https://bugs.python.org/issue27923
and the pull request can be s
12 matches
Mail list logo
