Yuvgoog Greenle wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote: >> Is there any point? Even if accepted, it's too late to make it into 3.1, >> and with the overwhelming approval for a moratorium on changes to >> built-ins, it is likely to just sit in the tracker, forgotten, until >> 2013 or later. How likely is it that the patch will still be >> applicable? > > > +1 on throwing it away completely even if it's a good idea. I suggest > Willi go invent a new language (and hope for it to become popular :-) > if he wants to experiment. Careful folks - these kinds of throwaway comments may be clearly tongue in cheek for anyone following the moratorium discussion on python-ideas, but will be justifiably confusing to anyone else, especially newcomers. Willi - Oleg is right that patches should go on the issue tracker. They tend to get lost if they only exist on the mailing list. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
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