On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 22:10, Brett C. wrote: > Don't let the photos from PyCON fool you; I never have a good look on my > face and I tend to look stoned. Just "look"? Dang, I really thought Tim, Fred, and I had a new recruit for our CrackPython project. The first one's free, y'know. > Basically I can live with having a single string module, but I would > like to see some real deprecation happen. The nice thing about the > pacakge separation is it made it clear in the code what would be going > away. If we at least at PendingDeprecation to what is supposed to be > taken out I will be happy. At the very least, my rewrite of libstring.tex will make it clear which inhabitants of the string module are going to be deprecated. Besides, since it's clear that Python 3000 will take a broader look at standard library packagization, I'll drop this if we can agree that the PEP 292 classes should go in the existing string module. -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/20040820/34b36756/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