On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I'm not saying that we definitely should add this to 2.1 (there's > enough on our plate already) but we should at least consider it, and > now that we have cycle GC, the major argument against it (that it > causes cycles) is gone... This is the perfect moment to ask: what do we have on our plates for 2.1? Shouldn't we have a list of goals for it or something? As a first-order approximation, what PEPs are expected to be included? And, most the conspiracy-theory question, what are Digital Creations' goals for Python? We now return you to our regularily scheduled bug fixing. -- Moshe Zadka <moshez@math.huji.ac.il> -- 95855124 http://advogato.org/person/moshez
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