RetroSearch Browse

Wed Oct 12 12:42:01 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-October/146683.html

Oops, right, I wanted to write "I don't think that adding a single
method deserves its own PEP."

Victor

2016-10-12 18:37 GMT+02:00 Stephen J. Turnbull
<turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp>:
> Victor Stinner writes:
>  > 2016-10-12 11:34 GMT+02:00 INADA Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com>:
>
>  > > I see.  My proposal should be another PEP (if PEP is required).
>  >
>  > I don't think that adding a single method deserves its own method.
>
> You mean "deserves own PEP", right?  I interpreted Nick to say that
> "the reasons that applied to PEP 367 don't apply here, so you can Just
> Do It" (subject to the usual criteria for review, but omit the PEP).
>
> I'm not sure whether he was channeling Guido or that should be
> qualified with an IMO or IMHO.
>
>
>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-October/146683.html below:

[Python-Dev] Adding bytes.frombuffer() constructor to PEP 467 (was: [Python-ideas] Adding bytes.frombuffer() constructor