Michael Chermside wrote:
> (I'm going out on a limb here, claiming that I'm right and Nick
> is wrong, but I'm going to stand by the claim anyhow. Anything
> which is machine readable "sometimes" is, by my definition, NOT
> machine readable!)
I was just being sloppy with my terminology by including "standardised format
for representations that won't round trip through eval()" under the heading of
'machine readable' (the machine can't do anything very useful with it, but it
can certainly recognise it for what it is).
Other than that, I agree entirely with what you wrote, and am +1 for including
this (leaving repr() alone) in PEP 3099 :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
