BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> Would it also be possible for the PEP-maintainers not to accept PEPs
> that are obvious jokes unless thedate is April I?
I believe this is the current policy. Why do you think the PEP editor
works differently?
Regards,
Martin
__
*cough*
Would it also be possible for the PEP-maintainers not to accept PEPs
that are obvious jokes unless thedate is April I?
*uncough*
--
mvh Björn
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Un
+M to reject.
On 6/16/05, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have
> feature, the community has been unable to reach a consensus on the
> proper syntax after more than two years of intensive debate (the PEP was
> introduced in
[Raymond Hettinger]
>> While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have
>> feature
[Barry Warsaw]
> Really? Where's the supporting poll data?
We've run IV polls since this PEP was introduced, and the geometric
mean of those shows LXVIII% of Python users strongly in favor (+I),
a
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 02:39, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have
> feature
Really? Where's the supporting poll data? In over 10 years of Python
programming, I've never once needed a Roman number literal. Worse, I
don't buy the compatibili
While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have
feature, the community has been unable to reach a consensus on the
proper syntax after more than two years of intensive debate (the PEP was
introduced in early April 2003).
Most agree that there should be only-one-way-to-do-it; howe
