On 11/2/07, Mike Klaas <mike.klaas at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2-Nov-07, at 6:57 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > Since people are already jumping on those bugs but nobody has voiced > > an opinion on your own patch, let me say that I think it's a good > > patch, and I want it in 2.6, but I'm reluctant to add it to 2.5.2 as > > it goes well beyond a bugfix (adding a new C API and all that). > > Thanks for looking at it! > > Is there a better way of exposing some c-helper code for a stdlib > module written in python? It seems that the canonical pattern is to > write a separate extension module called _<modulename> and import the > functionality from there, but that seemed like a significantly more > invasive patch. No, what you did was the right thing. It just doesn't feel like a bugfix to me. > Might it help to tack on the helper function in posix only, deleting > it from the os namespace? No. Why are yo so insistent on having this in 2.5.2? You can't force folks who use your code to upgrade (e.g. OSX Leopard was just shipped with 2.5.1). -- --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