On Mar 21, 2015 7:44 AM, "Brett Cannon" wrote:
>
> Thanks! PEP 488 is now marked as accepted. I expect I will have PEP 488
implemented before the PyCon sprints are over (work will be tracked in
http://bugs.python.org/issue23731).
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:06 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> A
Thanks! PEP 488 is now marked as accepted. I expect I will have PEP 488
implemented before the PyCon sprints are over (work will be tracked in
http://bugs.python.org/issue23731).
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:06 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Awesome, that's what I was hoping. Accepted! Congrats and t
Awesome, that's what I was hoping. Accepted! Congrats and thank you very
much for writing the PEP and guiding the discussion.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:41 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> I am willing to be the BDFL for this PEP. I have
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:41 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I am willing to be the BDFL for this PEP. I have tried to skim the recent
> discussion (only python-dev) and I don't see much remaining controversy.
> HOWEVER... The PEP is not clear (or at least too subtle) about the actual
> name for opt
I am willing to be the BDFL for this PEP. I have tried to skim the recent
discussion (only python-dev) and I don't see much remaining controversy.
HOWEVER... The PEP is not clear (or at least too subtle) about the actual
name for optimization level 0. If I have foo.py, and I compile it three
times
I have decided to have the default case of no optimization levels mean that
the .pyc file name will have *no* optimization level specified in the name
and thus be just as it is today. I made this decision due to potential
backwards-compatibility issues -- although I expect them to be minutes --
and
