Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/13/2010 2:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:09:02 -0500
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Guido van Rossum
wrote:
I'm at least +0 on
allowing trailing commas in the situation the OP mentioned.
FWIW, I am also about +0
On 14/12/2010 17:01, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The good thing about that idea is that maintenance of buggy.py will be so
simple!
It's self-describing, and needs no further documentation.
On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> The good thing about that idea is that maintenance of buggy.py will be so
>> simple!
>
> It's self-describing, and needs no further documentation. :-)
>
And psychologically more effect
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The good thing about that idea is that maintenance of buggy.py will be so
> simple!
It's self-describing, and needs no further documentation. :-)
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein
__
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:20:04 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
+1 from me.
If anyone complains too much, perhaps we can offer to retain the old
ConfigParser as "_BuggyConfigParser"? (that idea is only partially
tongue-in-cheek...)
Or we can put it in the "buggy" module which r
