On 02/16/2014 04:03 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > The PEP 436 is still a draft and not mentionned in Python 3.4 > changelog. The PEP proposes to add a DSL, not to modify all modules > implemented in C. I think that it should be marked as Final and > mentionned in the changelog. > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0436/ I need to clean it up and submit it for final inspection. This is on my to-do list for before 3.4.0 final. > 2014-02-16 19:31 GMT+01:00 Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org>: >> 1) We merge the Derby patch for the builtins module into 3.4, simply because >> it will "demo well". > Where is the issue to implement this feature? Anyway, I expect a huge > patch which is non-trivial and so very risky for such a very important > module :-/ It's too late IMO. http://bugs.python.org/issue20184 The point is that it *is* trivial and not particularly risky. Doing this right means that we execute essentially the same statements in the same order, merely split across two functions, and with a slightly different docstring. Literally the only detectable runtime difference that should exist after applying the patch is that the functions now publish docstrings. //arry/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140217/52570985/attachment.html>
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