RetroSearch Browse

Thu Mar 1 02:10:12 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117133.html

On 2/29/2012 2:34 PM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> Greg Ewing<greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz>  wrote:
>>> Options 2) and 3) would ideally entail one backwards incompatible
>>> bugfix: In 2.7 and 3.2 assignment to a memoryview with format 'B'
>>> rejects integers but accepts byte objects, but according to the
>>> struct syntax mandated by the PEP it should be the other way round.
>>
>> Maybe a compromise could be made to accept both in the
>> backport? That would avoid breaking old code while allowing
>> code that does the right thing to work.

This *almost* sounds like a feature addition.
>
> This could definitely be done. But backporting is beginning to look unlikely,
> since we currently have three +1 for "too complex to backport".
>
>
> I'm not strongly in favor of backporting myself. The main reason for me
> would be to prevent having additional 2->3 or 3->2 porting obstacles.
>
>
> Stefan Krah
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117133.html below:

[Python-Dev] State of PEP-3118 (memoryview part)