On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 02, 2010, at 09:34 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> P.S. I actually started this thread as a +0 to the idea of dropping
>>> bytecode only imports. Over the course of the discussion
On Mar 02, 2010, at 09:34 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> P.S. I actually started this thread as a +0 to the idea of dropping
>> bytecode only imports. Over the course of the discussion I've shifted to
>> a firm -1 in the absence of some proper
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> P.S. I actually started this thread as a +0 to the idea of dropping
> bytecode only imports. Over the course of the discussion I've shifted to
> a firm -1 in the absence of some proper comparative benchmarks to
> justify the change in semantics
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Thanks everybody for providing great input on this aspect of the PEP. I've
> updated the open issues section to include a list of the possible resolutions
> for bytecode-only imports. Unless anybody has more ideas, it might just be
> time to get a BDFL pronouncement.
I thin
