> All this talk of a replacement for ConfigParser is all well > and good (and I agree that a more pythonic interface would > be nice)... but. We're under 2 weeks from beta1, and I can't > see this new module being designed, implemented, and committed > before then. Remember, once b1 is out, we're stuck with the > API that we have come up with. Of course. Other recent proposals for brand new stuff also seem poorly timed. > I'd much rather see one or more packages developed alongside > Python - we can then take the best of them (or maybe a merger > of the best ideas for them) for 2.5. Right. So it went for optparse and logging. > Which leaves David's original question about the two patches. > While CP isn't perfect, and it would be nice to replace it, for > 2.4, I don't think these patches make things any worse, and they > add useful functionality (back, in one case) so I'm inclined > towards accepting them. If you think so, go ahead. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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