We've played around with robots.txt, but it's still useful for old docs
to be indexed (e.g., for removed features), which just need to figure
out how to get them deprecation in results. I wonder if in the old docs would help.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 11:02, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19,
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
On 21.12.15 23:57, Steve Dower wrote:
>
>> Was Py_MOVEREF (or MOVE_REF) ever suggested?
>>
>
> This would be nice name. The macro moves the ownership. But I think it's
> too late. Otherwise we'll never finish the bikeshedding.
FWIW, I lik
Nick Coghlan writes:
> Avoiding those misleading associations is a good argument in favour of
> Py_REPLACE over Py_SETREF - they didn't occur to me before casting my
> votes, and I can definitely see them causing confusion in the future.
>
> So perhaps the combination that makes the most sense is
On 21.12.15 23:57, Steve Dower wrote:
Was Py_MOVEREF (or MOVE_REF) ever suggested?
This would be nice name. The macro moves the ownership. But I think it's
too late. Otherwise we'll never finish the bikeshedding.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python
On 21.12.15 17:37, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Avoiding those misleading associations is a good argument in favour of
Py_REPLACE over Py_SETREF - they didn't occur to me before casting my
votes, and I can definitely see them causing confusion in the future.
So perhaps the combination that makes the most
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Le lundi 21 décembre 2015, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
>>
>> I still think the repr change to use keywords has a good chance for 3.6.
>
> repr() with keywords is called a method, no? Like isoformat()
>
Not keyword arguments - the proposal i
repr() with keywords is called a method, no? Like isoformat()
Victor
Le lundi 21 décembre 2015, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
> I still think the repr change to use keywords has a good chance for 3.6.
>
> --Guido (mobile)
> On Dec 21, 2015 2:09 PM, "Chris Barker" > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 201
