On Tue, Apr 09, 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I wasn't serious, but AFAICT /F was serious in his suggestion not to > discuss my PEPs on c.l.py any more. I think the consequence of that > would be that my PEPs only get discussed on python-dev. Then I see > two possibilities: simply ignore the c.l.py crowd, or inviting them. > I see serious downsides to each. So that means I'll have to face > c.l.py every time I have a PEP, or stop writing PEPs. The latter > sounds the most attractive -- I'll just check things in after a brief > discussion on python-dev. Seems to me that you're being unreasonably, er, boolean in your thinking here. From my POV, the fact that the BDFL follows the same PEP process as everyone else is a powerful point in favor of stability. There may not be a way to do it, but I'd sure like to try some things to lessen the difficulty of using c.l.py. -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "There are times when effort is important and necessary, but this should not be taken as any kind of moral imperative." --jdecker
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