I think we should move the discussion of the pragmatics of the email
module to the email-sig list (as Barry is already doing). But this is
probably my last post in this discussion until Nov 14 or so, I'm not
sure I'll be connected while I'm in Shanghai.
Due to travel prep, I don't have time to go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I
am happy to announce the second release candidate for Python 3.0.
This is a release candidate, so while it is not suitable for
production environments, we strongly encourage yo
sorry, this one scrolled off the top, and I didn't read it before
sending my other reply.
On approximately 11/6/2008 9:02 AM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Barry Warsaw:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Thi
On approximately 11/6/2008 3:59 AM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Stephen J. Turnbull:
Glenn Linderman writes:
> There is no reference to the word emacs or types in any of the messages
> you've posted in this thread, maybe you are referring to another thread
> somewhere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But if that's not the case, wouldn't it make more sense to keep
email out of
the initial 3.0 release, rather than put a half-broken version in
with
special "we can totally change the API for the
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:41 AM, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is 3.1 in general going to allow API-breaking changes from 3.0? That's fine
> with me if it is: it does make some sense to allow a "second chance" to get
> things really right.
I don't want to answer this with a blanket ye
On Nov 6, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
As I see it, there are 3 options:
1. Hold up 3.0 until you get an API for the email package that
handles
Unicode vs bytes issues gracefully
2. Drop the email package entirely from 3.0, iterate on a 3.0
version of
it on PyPI for a while, then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 1:04 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
So I would hope that the users of such Betas would quickly discover
that they were producing garbage, report it to M$, and go back to
using a release version with only the usual expectation of b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Glenn Linderman wrote:
Even 8-bit binary can be translated into a
sequence of Unicode codepoints with the same numeric value, for
example.
No, no, no, no. Using latin-1 to tunnel binary data throu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 7:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
So here's a question (speaking as someone that has never had to go
near
the email module, and is unlikely to do so anytime soon): is this
something that should hold up the release of Python 3.0?
No
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
There need to be two (and I would say three is better) sets of APIs:
byte-oriented for handling the wire protocol, Unicode-oriented for
handling well-formed messages (both presentation and compo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
This is an interesting perspective... "stuff em" does come to mind :)
But I'm not at all clear on what you mean by a round-trip through
the email module. Let me see... if you are creating an ema
>So here's a question (speaking as someone that has never had to go near
>the email module, and is unlikely to do so anytime soon): is this
>something that should hold up the release of Python 3.0?
I'm not sure. I noticed the email problems because I was trying to
port a web framework to py3k, and
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Even 8-bit binary can be translated into a
> sequence of Unicode codepoints with the same numeric value, for example.
No, no, no, no. Using latin-1 to tunnel binary data through Unicode just
gets us straight back into the "is it text or bytes?" hell that is the
8-bit strin
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> There are lots of other problems with the email package, and while it's
> made my life much better on the whole, it is definitely in need of
> improvement. Unfortunately, I don't see myself having much time to
> attack it in the near future. Maybe we can make it a Pycon spri
Glenn Linderman writes:
> There is no reference to the word emacs or types in any of the messages
> you've posted in this thread, maybe you are referring to another thread
> somewhere? Sorry, I'm new to this party, but I have read the whole
> thread... unless my mail reader has missed part
16 matches
Mail list logo
