On Fri, Dec 06, 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: >Aahz: >> >> Having just slogged my way through the entire import thread so far, I've >> got to ask why nobody else has demanded a PEP before we go any further? >> There are too many competing proposals; we need a good summary of what >> design we're planning, plus a summary of why all other proposals are >> rejected. >> >> I'm a very strong -1 on anything until there's a PEP. > > Well, there's PEP 273 which only discusses a feature (import from zip > files) and an API (strings in sys.path that reference zip files). > The PEP stands (I pronounce it accepted if it helps). > > But I agree that any API changes beyond that (either in C or in > Python) need more consideration, and a PEP would be fine. Yeah, I should have been clearer that I meant "any changes beyond what's in PEP 273"; I did read PEP 273 before posting to see whether there was coverage of the thread. I think this really needs a new PEP rather than updating PEP 273, because (as you say) PEP 273 covers its domain clearly. -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated. You discover truth everytime you use it." --reddy@lion.austin.ibm.com
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