> So let's try this out: Is it ok to include the new fields on range
> objects in 2.0.1?
My basic answer is "no". This is complicated by the fact that the 2.22
patch on rangeobject.c *also* fixes the __contains__ bug [*].
Nevertheless, if I were the Patch Czar (and note the very, very
deliberate use of the subjunctive here), I'd probably tell whoever
wanted to fix the __contains__ bug to submit a new patch that does not
include the new xrange() attributes.
[*] Whee! I figured out how to browse CVS! ;-)
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2001 by aahz@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Three sins: BJ, B&J, B&J
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