On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Although [PEP ] is still marked as draft, I personally think of it
> as accepted; [...]
What does it take to get PEP formally marked as accepted? Is
there anything I can do to push that process forward?
The lack of a WSGI answer
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Although [PEP ] is still marked as draft, I personally think of it
>> as accepted; [...]
>
> What does it take to get PEP formally marked as accepted? Is
> there anythin
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Although [PEP ] is still marked as draft, I personally think of it
>> as accepted; [...]
>
> What does it take to get PEP formally marked as accepted? Is
> there anything
In the server/gateway example, there is a comment in the code that says:
# TODO: this needs to be binary on Py3
The "TODO" part confuses me. In other areas of the PEP, there are
comments like:
# call must be byte-safe on Py3
which make sense. But is the TODO meant to be a TODO for the PEP
At 04:43 PM 1/3/2011 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Although [PEP ] is still marked as draft, I personally think of it
>> as accepted; [...]
>
> What does it take to get PEP
At 08:04 PM 1/3/2011 -0500, Randy Syring wrote:
In the server/gateway example, there is a comment in the code that says:
# TODO: this needs to be binary on Py3
The "TODO" part confuses me. In other areas of the PEP, there are
comments like:
# call must be byte-safe on Py3
which make sense.
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:29 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 08:04 PM 1/3/2011 -0500, Randy Syring wrote:
>>
>> In the server/gateway example, there is a comment in the code that says:
>>
>> # TODO: this needs to be binary on Py3
>>
>> The "TODO" part confuses me. In other areas of the PEP, there are
>>
On 4 January 2011 11:43, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> Although [PEP ] is still marked as draft, I personally think of it
>>> as accepted; [...]
>>
>> What does it take to get
On 4 January 2011 15:43, James Y Knight wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
>> As documented in:
>>
>> http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/10/wsgi-issues-with-http-head-requests.html
>>
>> the automatic addition of a Content-Length response header where
>> len(iterable) is
On Jan 3, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> As documented in:
>
> http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/10/wsgi-issues-with-http-head-requests.html
>
> the automatic addition of a Content-Length response header where
> len(iterable) is 1, can cause wrong output for cases where WSGI
> applic
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> I note one issue which I have expressed concern over previously. In
> section 'Handling the Content-Length Header; it says:
>
> """
> Under some circumstances, however, the server or gateway may be able
> to either generate a Content-Length
On 4 January 2011 16:39, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
>> I note one issue which I have expressed concern over previously. In
>> section 'Handling the Content-Length Header; it says:
>>
>> """
>> Under some circumstances, however, the server o
12 matches
Mail list logo
