On 14/12/2010 17:01, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The good thing about that idea is that maintenance of buggy.py will be so
simple!
It's self-describing, and needs no further documentation.
On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> The good thing about that idea is that maintenance of buggy.py will be so
>> simple!
>
> It's self-describing, and needs no further documentation. :-)
>
And psychologically more effect
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The good thing about that idea is that maintenance of buggy.py will be so
> simple!
It's self-describing, and needs no further documentation. :-)
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein
__
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:20:04 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
+1 from me.
If anyone complains too much, perhaps we can offer to retain the old
ConfigParser as "_BuggyConfigParser"? (that idea is only partially
tongue-in-cheek...)
Or we can put it in the "buggy" module which r
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:20:04 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> If anyone complains too much, perhaps we can offer to retain the old
> ConfigParser as "_BuggyConfigParser"? (that idea is only partially
> tongue-in-cheek...)
Or we can put it in the "buggy" module which receives all bugg
Wiadomość napisana przez Nick Coghlan w dniu 2010-12-14, o godz. 01:20:
> +1 from me.
>
> If anyone complains too much, perhaps we can offer to retain the old
> ConfigParser as "_BuggyConfigParser"? (that idea is only partially
> tongue-in-cheek...)
>
We may leave the LegacyInterpolation clas
+1 from me.
If anyone complains too much, perhaps we can offer to retain the old
ConfigParser as "_BuggyConfigParser"? (that idea is only partially
tongue-in-cheek...)
Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
_
