On 03:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm actually sort of liking this idea. A Pathname class, for
convenience
a subtype of String, but containing the underlying binary
representation
used by the OS. Even non-unicode pathnames could be represented.
On the one hand, I agree with you - excep
On 03:32 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 10:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you clarify what proposal you are supporting for Python:
Sure. Neither of your descriptions is terribly accurate, but I'll try
to explain.
1) Two sets of APIs, one returning unicode strings, an
On 30 Sep, 09:22 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:00 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin, I don't understand why you are in favor of storing raw by
On 05:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:59 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 02:32 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the absence of a 2.6 getcwdb, perhaps the fixer could just drop the
"benefit of the doubt" case? It could always be added to 2.7, and the
parity relea
On 02:32 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like maybe there should be some 2to3 fixers in here
somewhere,
too? Not necessarily as part of this patch, but somewhere related? I
don't
know
On 12:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the most sane contribution I've seen so far :).
See attached patch: python3_bytes_filename.patch
Using the patch, you will get:
- open() support bytes
- listdir(unicode) -> only unicode, *skip* invalid filenames
(as asked by Guido)
Forgive me fo
On 3 May, 11:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 3, 2008, at 7:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred asked for a --prefix flag (which is what I was voting on). I
don't
really care what you do by default as long as you give me a way to do
it
differently.
What's most interesting (to me) i
On 05:53 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 1, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Interesting. I'm of the opposite opinion. I really don't want
Python dictating to me what my home directory should look like (a dot
file doesn't count because so many tools conspire to hide it from
me).
On 03:49 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stand corrected on a few points. You've convinced me that ~/lib/ is
wrong. But I still don't like ~/.local/; not in the last place because
it's not any more local than any other dot files or directories. The
"symmetry" with /usr/local/ is pretty weak, and
On 01:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everybody. I apologize for writing yet another lengthy screed about
a simple directory naming issue. I feel strongly about it but I
encourate anyone who doesn't to simply skip it.
First, s
On 11:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like this, except one issue: I really don't like the .local
directory. I don't see any compelling reason why this needs to be
~/.local/lib/ -- IMO it should just be ~/lib/. There's no need to hide
it from view, especially since the user is expected to manag
11 matches
Mail list logo
