[Guido] > ... > Given that even Tim didn't find this in the PEP upon his first two > readings, While agreeing that caution is prudent, this specific reason is a poor one: I didn't read the PEP like "a user", but like a standards geek. It never occurred to me that a once-open issue would be resolved *only* in an addendum without the resolution also being reflected back into the main text. So I read the main text carefully, but barely even noticed the existence of the rest. On a Bell curve, I expect that way of reading a PEP is hugging a tail. > ... > I'd say that *if* there's a useful use of this, we shouldn't break > that in the 2.2 branch. 2.3 is a different issue. If Marc-Andre hasn't complained yet, there's no use at all for it <wink>.
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