On Nov 30, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>I will channel Neal: "I decline and/or do not want to respond". =)
PEP 291 updated.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:35, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 01:09 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
>>PEP 291 is very old and should probably be retired. I don't think anyone is
>>maintaining standard libraries in py3k that are also compatible with Python
>>2.anything. (At least not in a sin
On Nov 30, 2010, at 01:09 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>PEP 291 is very old and should probably be retired. I don't think anyone is
>maintaining standard libraries in py3k that are also compatible with Python
>2.anything. (At least not in a single codebase.)
I agree. I think we should change the sta
On 30/11/2010 06:33, Éric Araujo wrote:
Good morning python-dev,
PEP 291 (Backward Compatibility for Standard Library) does not seem to
take Python 3 into account. Is this PEP only relevant for the 2.7
branch?* If it’s supposed to apply to 3.x too, despite the view that
3.0 was a clean break,
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> Good morning python-dev,
>
> PEP 291 (Backward Compatibility for Standard Library) does not seem to
> take Python 3 into account. Is this PEP only relevant for the 2.7
> branch?* If it’s supposed to apply to 3.x too, despite the view that
> 3
Good morning python-dev,
PEP 291 (Backward Compatibility for Standard Library) does not seem to
take Python 3 into account. Is this PEP only relevant for the 2.7
branch?* If it’s supposed to apply to 3.x too, despite the view that
3.0 was a clean break, what does it mean to have a module that is
