Message88537
> I was hoping this would make 3.1. Too late, I guess. What about 3.2?
Here's what I said before:
"""
I think we should either get this into the 3.0a5 release planned for May
7, or wait for 3.1. I'd prefer to see some kind of PEP discussion on
the python-3000 list, rather than just a BDFL approval in a tracker
issue. I think it's a useful feature (especially now we already have
PEP 3132) but we're getting close to the release, so I'd like to see
some more eyeballs on this code... I expect the PEP discussion will be
short and sweet -- either most folks like it, or we should not push
through at this point in time.
"""
I still think this is the way to do it. I'm +0 myself. We might decide
not to do it just because py3k needs stability more than it needs more
features. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-05-29 20:52:33 | gvanrossum | set | recipients:
+ gvanrossum, twouters, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, belopolsky |
2009-05-29 20:52:33 | gvanrossum | set | messageid: <1243630353.47.0.72068619204.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2009-05-29 20:52:30 | gvanrossum | link | issue2292 messages |
2009-05-29 20:52:30 | gvanrossum | create | |
|