Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Hi Talin,
>
> Here's how I see it.
>
> The probability of this PEP being accepted doesn't really depend on
> whether that particular proposed feature is present. Given all
> possible proposed features, it's probably better to err on the side of
> exclusion -- a PEP like
On 6/20/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While you are here, I'd like to ask a couple questions:
>
> 1) Do you have any reaction to Brett Cannon's idea that we add a second,
> optional argument to str() that accepts exactly the same conversion
> specifier syntax? Should I incorporate that int
