Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Barry's on vacation, so I've done the honors. It's checked in as PEP
> 264.
Cool, thanks.
> I like this a lot -- I hope we can add this to 2.2a2 (which was due
> today but is postponed for at least a week).
Well, I'm off sunseeking in a week; I'd hope it can get it done by then.
> I think the integral flags to compile() are fine,
Noted.
> and 'or' is indeed the right thing.
Hmm. While I agree that 'or'ing is the best thing to do by default,
it would be nice if there was some way of requesting a blank starting
point (this is the other unresolved issue in PEP 236, after all).
Maybe it's not worth it.
> After reading the PEP, I understand the refactoring that I
> complained about in a comment on the patch.
OK.
> Good job!
It's not done yet (and I thought this was a dead simple change!).
I've uploaded a new patch, which takes Tim's suggestion of using the
_Feature objects and runs with it. I'd appreciate it if you and Tim
could cast an eye over it - if you think the apprach is sound then
I'll update my PEP and draft some changes to 236.
Cheers,
M.
--
Presumably pronging in the wrong place zogs it.
-- Aldabra Stoddart, ucam.chat
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