On Jan 27, 2005, at 1:20 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > I agree. Because of the BDFL pronouncement, I cannot reject the patch, > but I won't accept it, either. So it seems that this patch will have > to sit in the SF tracker until either Guido processes it, or it is > withdrawn. If people want to restart this discussion, I'd like to start back with the following message, rather than simply accepting/rejecting the patch. From the two comments so far, it seems like it's not the patch that needs reviewing, but still the concept. On August 10, 2004 12:17:14 PM EDT, I wrote: > Sooo should (for 'generator' in objects that claim to be in > __builtins__ but aren't), > 1) 'generator' be added to __builtins__ > 2) 'generator' be added to types.py and its __module__ be set to > 'types' > 3) 'generator' be added to <newmodule>.py and its __module__ be set to > '<newmodule>' (and a name for the module chosen) Basically, I'd like to see them be given a binding somewhere, and have their claimed module agree with that, but am not particular as to where. Option #2 seemed to be rejected last time, and option #1 was given approval, so that's what I wrote a patch for. It sounds like it's getting pretty strong "no" votes this time around, however. Therefore, I would like to suggest option #3, with <newmodule> being, say, 'internals'. James
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