RetroSearch Browse

Mon Aug 23 21:04:19 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/048256.html

Barry Warsaw wrote:

> 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.
> 

Ooh.  Tempting.  But then I would have to give up my Opium addiction to 
go back and I don't know if I can do that.  That communal feel of 
hanging out in the local Opium den at my cousin's place would be such a 
loss.  =)

> 
>>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.
> 

OK, that works for me.

-Brett

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/048256.html below:

[Python-Dev] Update PEP 292