[Thomas writes] > I admit: it has been too low level. I have posted > (and implemented) a new proposal describing a more > high level interface. Your high-level interface looks fine (except it should be coded in Python ;-) > In this I followed Gordon's > suggestion: Provide the minimum needed. I took that to mean "for the high-level interface" > If one wants to do more special things, one probably needs > your win32 extensions anyway. Im not really convinced about this. I would still rather see the complete win32api registry support added, seeing as the code exists. > Already too late! (Programming is fun :-) (Is competition good ?) Of course it is good - it means I will get my implementation done quicker now ;-) > Don't you think that the raw Win32 api functions are much too low > level to belong into core python? How should they be documented? You said you have seen the sources, so you should have seen there is also copious documentation - Im converting them to docstrings. Mark.
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