> > Not that I hope to override the heavy -1, but I don't agree > with the second > > point. It embodies a huge amount of knowledge that is needed to write > > portable code. As such, IMO, it _does_ belong in the standard > library. How > > is it different in its nature from sys.platform, which is only > a much weaker > > version of the same concept? > > A more subtle way of stating my opinion could be: if we were to do > something in the standard distribution about the problems that this is > addressing, I think we would do it in a much more direct fashion, > e.g. by making the appropriate enquiry functions directly accessible. > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) I much prefer that answer, as it leaves the door open to a patch. I don't care about the implementation, just the feature. Thanks. --david
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