On 4/27/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:38 AM 4/27/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >The change below was rolled back because it broke other stuff. But IMO
> >it is actually necessary to fix this,
>
> Huh? The change you showed wasn't reverted AFAICT; it's still on the t
At 11:38 AM 4/27/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>The change below was rolled back because it broke other stuff. But IMO
>it is actually necessary to fix this,
Huh? The change you showed wasn't reverted AFAICT; it's still on the trunk.
> otherwise those few exceptions
>that don't derive fr
