On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 17:07, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > Or you could argue on a procedural basis: regardless of whether > the feature is good or bad, the current implementation is > unacceptable, as the PEP does not correspond with the > implementation, the syntax is undocumented, the code has no test > cases, and so on. I'm actually going to do that, because I do > think the process is unacceptable, and should be either corrected > or reversed (of course, this says nothing about the feature itself, > or the code implementing it). Martin makes a good point. Guido could threaten to remove the feature by beta 1 (and thus for 2.4 final) if the PEP is not brought up to date. not-that-i'm-volunteering-'cause-i'd-rather-see-it-done-ly y'rs, -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040805/e8230d4a/attachment.pgp
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