A good plan. I think this could be added to 3.5 still? It's a pretty minor
adjustment to the PEP 492 machinery, really.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 Jun 2015 10:01, Ben Leslie be...@benno.id.au wrote:
If this seems like a good approach I'll
On 14/06/2015 11:50, Ben Leslie wrote:
Per Nick's advice I've created enhancement proposal 245340 with an
attached patch.
http://bugs.python.org/issue24450 as opposed to
http://bugs.python.org/issue24450#msg245340 :)
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
On 14 Jun 2015 19:17, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
A good plan. I think this could be added to 3.5 still? It's a pretty
minor adjustment to the PEP 492 machinery, really.
Good point - as per Ben's original post, the lack of it makes it quite hard
to get a clear picture of the system
Per Nick's advice I've created enhancement proposal 245340 with an
attached patch.
On 14 June 2015 at 19:16, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
A good plan. I think this could be added to 3.5 still? It's a pretty minor
adjustment to the PEP 492 machinery, really.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at
In article 20150615003717.2599.82...@psf.io,
senthil.kumaran python-check...@python.org wrote:
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/9a0c5ffe7420
changeset: 96605:9a0c5ffe7420
parent: 96603:47a566d6ee2a
parent: 96604:3ded282f9615
user:Senthil Kumaran sent...@uthcode.com
