Terry Reedy wrote:
As I remember, my impression was based on the suggested procedure of first
copywrite one's work and then license it under one of two acceptible
"original licenses". This makes sense for a whole module, but hardly for
most patches, to the point of being nonsense for a patch of
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 17:35 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> I've created an OpenSSL version of the sha module. trivial to modify
> to be a md5 module. Its a first version with cleanup to be done and
> such. being managed in the SF patch manager:
>
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=de
G'day,
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 13:04 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 08:37:21AM -0500, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:54:27PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > Are there any potential problems with making the md5sum module
> > > availability
> > > "opt
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 11:02:23AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 17:35 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> > I've created an OpenSSL version of the sha module. trivial to modify
> > to be a md5 module. Its a first version with cleanup to be done and
> > such. being managed in
I can't really imagine Raymond liking this idea, and I have a feeling the idea
has been shot down before. However, I can't persuade Google to tell me anything
about such an occasion, so here goes anyway. . .
The utilities in the itertools module can easily be composed to provide
additional usef
[Nick Coghlan]
> If itertools was a hybrid module, the handy 3-4 liners could go in the Python
> section, with the heavy lifting done by the underlying C module. The Python
> equivalents to the current C code could also be placed in the hybrid module
> (as
> happens with some of the other hybrid m
