At 01:22 PM 9/27/2010 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 9/26/2010 9:38 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 11:15 AM 9/27/2010 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
You misunderstand me; I wasn't asking how to *add* a link, but how to
turn OFF the automatic conversion of the phrase "PEP 333" that happens
without any special
At 02:59 PM 9/26/2010 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
You could mark added material is a way that does not conflict with
rst or html. Or use .rst to make new text stand out in the .html web
verion (bold, underlined, red, or whatever). People familiar with
333 can focus on the marked sections. New rea
Done. The other amendments were never actually made, so I just
reverted the Python 3 bit after moving it to the new PEP. I'll make
the changes to instead as soon as I have another time slot free.
At 01:56 PM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Since you have commit privileges, just
Since you have commit privileges, just do it. The PEP editor position
mostly exists to assure non-committers are not prevented from
authoring PEPs.
Please do add a prominent note at the top of PEP 333 pointing to PEP
for further information on Python 3 compliance or some such
words. Add a sim
At 01:44 PM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2010, at 1:33 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>
>> At 08:20 AM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> I'm happy approving Final status for the
>>> *original* PEP 333 and I'm happy to
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2010, at 1:33 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>
>> At 08:20 AM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> I'm happy approving Final status for the
>>> *original* PEP 333 and I'm happy to approve a new PEP which includes
>>> PJE's corrections
At 08:20 AM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm happy approving Final status for the
*original* PEP 333 and I'm happy to approve a new PEP which includes
PJE's corrections.
Can we make it PEP , then? ;-)
That number would at least communicate that it's the same thing, but
for Py
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> I hadn't realized that PEP 333 was never actually in the 'Final' status
> (de facto, it has been so for years, of course). Given that fact, and
> PJEs assurances, I think amending the PEP and then immediately declaring
> it final is reasonable
At 07:15 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Don't see this as a new spec. See it as a procedural issue.
As a procedural issue, PEP 333 is an Informational PEP, in "Draft"
status, which I'd like to make Final after these amendments. See
http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Amendments_1.0, which
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:07 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but
>> I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it
>> is just a set of textual corrections on
At 02:07 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but
I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it
is just a set of textual corrections on the existing PEP 333.
With the exception of the bytes change
At 09:22 PM 9/25/2010 -0400, Jesse Noller wrote:
It seems like it will end up
different enough to be a different specification, closely related to
the original, but different enough to trip up all the people
maintaining current WSGI servers and apps.
The only actual *change* to the spec is mand
This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but
I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it
is just a set of textual corrections on the existing PEP 333.
--Guido
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:56 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> I have only done the Python 3-sp
13 matches
Mail list logo
