At 10:27 AM 9/21/2009 -0500, James Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:
> +1. I'd really rather not have the spec dictated by the need to
work around
> problems in the stdlib or language definition. Better to fix them ASAP.
This is a *Python* web server gateway interface, yes? Fixing stdlib
bugs is fine, but asking for the language to change just to make
gateway interfaces a bit easier to write seems a bit much; I'd hope we
can take Python the language as granted, and work from there.
I'm not arguing that WSGI should dictate what Python 3 does. But if
we're having so much trouble doing something so simple in a way that
work on both Python 2 and Python 3, doesn't that suggest that anybody
doing *anything* non-trivial is going to have similar problems?
This discussion has been making me wonder what other unicode/bytes
problems I'm going to have on Python 3, and raising the ugly spectre
of duplicated, type-specific APIs ala Java... only without the
overloading that lets you give them the same method names. :-(
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG@python.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
