At 06:52 PM 9/21/2010 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:09:44 -0400
"P.J. Eby" wrote:
> While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would
> be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3
> stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:09 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> After all, even if PEP 333 is ultimately replaced by PEP 444, it's probably
> a good idea to have *some* sort of WSGI 1-ish thing available on Python 3,
> with bytes/unicode and other matters settled.
Indeed.
Though I generally like the directi
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:09:44 -0400
"P.J. Eby" wrote:
> While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would
> be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3
> stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle
> out implementation questions.
I
While the Web-SIG is trying to hash out PEP 444, I thought it would
be a good idea to have a backup plan that would allow the Python 3
stdlib to move forward, without needing a major new spec to settle
out implementation questions.
After all, even if PEP 333 is ultimately replaced by PEP 444,
