[Tim
>> I did so because that's what I believed <wink> I had heard the day
>> before.
[Guido]
> Sounds like you need to be careful with the channeling there... :-)
It wasn't channeling at the time -- it was very clear the day before, at a
PLabs meeting, when I asked what our plans were for 2.3, and all the "new
feature" PEPs (at the time) were explicitly ruled out, in favor of
consolidation. That you then introduced a "new feature" PEP of your own,
and within 9 hours of the PEP Parade post, was utterly unexpected.
> ...
> Maybe my mistake was thinking that adding bool was a small change.
It *is* a small change; I think the problem, at least at the start of the
brouhaha, was merely that it was *a* change. More substantial complaints
surfaced later, so it would have been a tempest regardless.
> Maybe you could have brought this up when PEP 285 was first circulated
> on python-dev? I guess you didn't foresee the outcyr either. :-)
I posted my PEP Parade announcement to Python-Dev:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-March/020735.html
and tried to tweak you about it before 24 hours had passed:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-March/020805.html
As I've said before, I was raised in Wisconsin. If someone doesn't get the
message the first time, it's too damn cold to stay outside all night long
screaming -- and they're probably drunk anyway <wink>.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4