Cool. I think we can make goof use of this in Resolver One.
Well, good use - but that too.
Michael
Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Foord
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 1:59 PM
To: Discussion of IronPython
S
we can make goof use of this in Resolver One.
Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Foord
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 1:59 PM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] 2.1 Branch in Codeplex Sources
Dino Viehl
EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Foord
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 1:59 PM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] 2.1 Branch in Codeplex Sources
Dino Viehland wrote:
>
> There will certainly be some 2.6 features. But we still haven't
ECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Vernon Cole
*Sent:* Friday, October 31, 2008 6:02 PM
*To:* Discussion of IronPython
*Subject:* Re: [IronPython] 2.1 Branch in Codeplex Sources
"IronPython 3k"... does that mean that IPy 2.1 is targeted to be
compatible with CPython 2.6?
(
.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vernon Cole
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 6:02 PM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] 2.1 Branch in Codeplex Sources
"IronPython 3k"... does that mean that IPy 2.1 is targeted to be compatible
with CPython
"IronPython 3k"... does that mean that IPy 2.1 is targeted to be compatible
with CPython 2.6?
(Please say "yes"!)
--
Vernon Cole
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Dino Viehland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just one other comment on top of what Curt said. You might more properly
> think of Main a
Just one other comment on top of what Curt said. You might more properly think
of Main as IronPython 3k. Main includes a ton of renames and other breaking
made in Microsoft.Scripting.Core/System.Core that will end up in .NET 4.0.
We're still working on what we want to do for 2.1 (and input is
Curt Hagenlocher wrote:
Sorry, we should have been more explicit about this. The
IronPython_2_0 branch is the 2.0 branch now. Other than some tests
that Dave added recently, I don't think that there have been any
source changes made since the RC was released.
We often don't update the assem
Curt Hagenlocher wrote:
Oh, regarding the comments -- we have two separate issues.
1. The "push" job runs on a scheduled basis, so it's not just copying
a single checkin. It could theoretically aggregate multiple comments,
but there are some mechanical problems involved in that.
Not hard pro
Oh, regarding the comments -- we have two separate issues.
1. The "push" job runs on a scheduled basis, so it's not just copying a
single checkin. It could theoretically aggregate multiple comments, but
there are some mechanical problems involved in that.
2. More importantly, they sometimes contai
Sorry, we should have been more explicit about this. The IronPython_2_0
branch is the 2.0 branch now. Other than some tests that Dave added
recently, I don't think that there have been any source changes made since
the RC was released.
We often don't update the assembly info until we're ready to
11 matches
Mail list logo
