> Not so fast Mr. Van Rossum! We need to get the specifications for > these features written first. Barry should be updating the PEP > guidelines today, and Tim and Thomas have been assigned PEPs on the > two most controversial features. Yesterday, I proposed we set Aug. 9 > as the deadline for completing the specs. They are not controversial with *me*, and the complaints about either that were repeated today don't impress me much. The only concerns I have are: - Should we allow [x, y for x in s1 for y in s2] or should we require that to be written as [(x, y) for x in s1 for y in s2]? - What does a += b += c mean? Plus doubts about the cleanliness of the implementations given by the currently proposed patches, e.g. Thomas' doubt about the use of so many new opcodes (which I think is actually fine). > Until we have the specs, I don't think we need to have lots of > long-winded debates about whether the features scare people :-). Agreed. Besides, our priorities should be focused on the 1.6 release first. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://dinsdale.python.org/~guido/)
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