Ron Adam wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>
>>> One issue to consider is also politeness. People sometimes complain that
>>> they feel treated unfair if their report is declared "invalid" - they
>>> surely believed it was a valid report, at the time they made it.
>>
Krishna Sankar wrote:
> Folks,
>As a follow-up to the py3k discussions started by Bruce and Guido, I
> pinged Brett and he suggested I submit an exploratory proposal. Would
> appreciate insights, wisdom, the good, the bad and the ugly.
>
> A)Does it make sense ?
> B)Which application
Robert Kern wrote:
> I invite Greg and Steven and whoever else is interested to discuss ideas for
> the
> PEP on numpy-discussion. I'm skeptical, seeing what currently has been
> suggested, but some more details could easily allay that.
>
> http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discus
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> What makes 3.0 so special? Additions to the stdlib can be considered
> at any feature release. Frankly, 3.0 is already so loaded with new
> features (and removals) that I'm not sure it's worth pile this onto
> it.
>
I actually wrote 3.x, not 3.0. I agree that it makes
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>> I think this requires a PEP, and explicit support from the
>> NumPy people.
>>
>
> Someone who knows more about numpy's internals would
> be needed to figure out what the details should be
> like in order to be usable by numpy. But I could wri
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I still don't see why the standard library needs to be weighed down
> with a competitor to numpy. Including a subset of numpy was considered
> in the past, but it's hard to decide on the right subset. In the end
> it was decided that numpy is too big to become a standard l
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> But what's the point, given that numpy already exists? Wouldn't you
>> just be redoing the work that numpy has already done?
>>
>
> Sometimes I just want to do something simple like
> adding two vectors together, and it seems unreasonable
> t
Aahz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007, Armin Rigo wrote:
>> Sorry for the spamming. I hope this will be of interest to some of you.
>
> This is not spamming, this is wonderful news! Congratulations!
Second the congrats!
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In the past I've begged off of actually writing PEPs because I don't
> have the time, but if there is interest in codifying this I think I
> don't have the time *not* to write it. I'd prefer to document the
> pending/deprecate/remove policy first, but I can write u
