FYI I started to work on the implementation: I rebased Alex Gaynor's
patch written in 2014 and converted it to a pull request.
http://bugs.python.org/issue22559
Victor
2017-06-10 1:56 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Peterson :
> The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of
> timing
Le 10 juin 2017 22:09, "Guido van Rossum" a écrit :
Let's retroactively make Benjamin the BDFL-delegate for this PEP. The
effect is the same: the PEP is officially accepted.
Ok fine, I will update the PEP and then start to work on review the old
implementation written by Alex Gaynor.
Victor
__
Thank you Benjamin ;-)
Victor
Le 10 juin 2017 01:58, "Benjamin Peterson" a écrit :
> The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of
> timing. If MemoryBIO was in Python 3 when PEP 466 was accepted, it surely
> would have come along for the ride to 2.7. I believe PEP 46
Agreed, that’s good reasoning. Thanks for short-circuiting the discussion!
Cheers,
Steve
Top-posted from my Windows phone
From: Benjamin Peterson
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 16:59
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: [Python-Dev] On "PEP 546 — Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to
P
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> > wrote:
> > Therefore, as 2.7 release manager, I'm accepting the PEP.
>
> 2017-06-10 3:03 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
> > Well reasoned!
>
> Guido: by default, you are the only one wh
On 10 June 2017 at 09:56, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of
> timing. If MemoryBIO was in Python 3 when PEP 466 was accepted, it surely
> would have come along for the ride to 2.7. I believe PEP 466 is generally
> considered to have
On 2017-06-10 01:56, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of
> timing. If MemoryBIO was in Python 3 when PEP 466 was accepted, it
> surely would have come along for the ride to 2.7. I believe PEP 466 is
> generally considered to have produ
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
> Therefore, as 2.7 release manager, I'm accepting the PEP.
2017-06-10 3:03 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
> Well reasoned!
Guido: by default, you are the only one who pronounces officially on a
PEP. Should I understand that you approved
Well reasoned!
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Benjamin Peterson
wrote:
> The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of
> timing. If MemoryBIO was in Python 3 when PEP 466 was accepted, it surely
> would have come along for the ride to 2.7. I believe PEP 466 is general
The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of
timing. If MemoryBIO was in Python 3 when PEP 466 was accepted, it
surely would have come along for the ride to 2.7. I believe PEP 466 is
generally considered to have produced positive results. PEP 546,
carrying no breaking ch
10 matches
Mail list logo
