> I think neither. This topic seems to have generated a lot of > discussion. I > think it deserves a bit more elaboration than what you'd find > reasonable for > pep42. Also, it would be kinda nice to add it to the Python FAQ with a > reference to a specific pep for all the gory details of the problem and > solution(s). That would be a great idea, if only we had a PEP author. To be honest, I really dont care too much about this issue, and have been doing my level best to avoid it. But Tim knows that, and delights in assigning related patches to me ;-) I certainly don't care enough to own a pep on it. The way things stand, I have a checkin ready to go, and am unwilling to commit to any sort of pep in the short or medium term. The best I could do is to add links to the 3 or 4 other patches submitted for the same thing, and pep42 seemed ideal. So given this, what should I do - just check it in, and leave it to the collective memory? ;-) 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