On 28 November 2017 at 13:22, bunslow wrote:
> My first submission to this list was predicated on what I'd read in PEPs --
> and many of those, since they recommend major-enough changes to require a
> PEP, have sections (often lengthy) dedicated to "what's wrong with the
>
I certainly didn't take away the right lesson! And lesson well learned,
hopefully.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:22 PM, bunslow wrote:
> > My first submission to this list was predicated on what I'd read
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:22 PM, bunslow wrote:
> My first submission to this list was predicated on what I'd read in PEPs --
> and many of those, since they recommend major-enough changes to require a
> PEP, have sections (often lengthy) dedicated to "what's wrong with the
>
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 27 November 2017 at 21:59, Nick Timkovich
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >>
> >> But calling it "atrocious" and so bad that it needs to
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> But calling it "atrocious" and so bad that it needs to be fixed
> "immediately" as if it's a blight upon the stdlib is unnecessarily
> insulting to those that have worked on the module. To convey the feeling
> that you
+1
Basically, if you're posting here, you probably want something to change.
And that means that somebody has to make that change. And someone has to
approve it. Etc. And you are trying to influence those people to
make/approve/etc. that change, since for them it's less work if nothing
change.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 14:57 Nick Timkovich wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>
>> Maybe, that suffices: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/xheap
>>
> I still think the heapq.heap* functions are atrocious and they should
>