On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 11:37:21PM -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > So is PEP 294 itself rejected? Or should we await a formal review
> > request (as per the above)?
>
> I suggest to reject it without further ado.
Go ahead.
I still consider this an open issue (though of pretty low priority). If
anyone else here feels that it's redundant to refer to built in types by
two different names and has a better idea of where to put names that match
the __name__ attribute of types, please go ahead and write a proposal.
> It seems there are two
> kinds of PEPs: those aimed primarily at public review, and those aimed
> primarily at the BDFL. 294 seems to be of the latter kind; it's 10
> months old now and has never been posted (at least according to its
> Post-History). I wonder if the language in PEP 1 about this needs
> firming up?
Mea culpa. I never realized that I forgot to actually post it.
Oren
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