On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm willing to go along with that (especially given your report of >> AppEngine's experience with the "labs" namespace). >> >> Can we class this as a pronouncement on PEP 408? That is, "No to >> adding a __preview__ namespace, but yes to adding regex directly for >> 3.3"? > > Yup. We seem to have a tendency to over-analyze decisions a bit lately > (witness the hand-wringing about the hash collision DoS attack). I have now updated PEP 408 accordingly (i.e. rejected, but with a specific note about regex). And (since Alex Gaynor brought it up off-list), I'll explicitly note here that I'm taking your approval as granting the special permission PEP 399 needs to accept a C extension module without a pure Python equivalent. Patches to *add* a pure Python version for use by other implementations are of course welcome (in practice, I suspect it's likely only in PyPy that such an engine would be fast enough to be usable). Regards, 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