RetroSearch Browse

Fri May 6 20:00:13 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053467.html

[me]
> > I don't think it's necessary to separate this out into a separate PEP;
> > that just seems busy-work. I agree these parts are orthogonal and
> > uncontroversial; a counter-PEP can suffice by stating that it's not
> > countering those items nor repeating them.

[Raymond]
> If someone volunteers to split it out for you, I think it would be
> worthwhile.  Right now, the PEP is hard to swallow in one bite.
> Improving its digestibility would be a big help when the PEP is offered
> up to the tender mercies to comp.lang.python.

Well, I don't care so much about their tender mercies right now. I'm
not even sure that if we reach agreement on python-dev there's any
point in repeating the agony on c.l.py.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053467.html below:

[Python-Dev] Breaking off Enhanced Iterators PEP from PEP 340