On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Aahz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> Martin v. L?wis wrote:
Such a policy would then translate to a dead end for Python 2.x
based applications.
>>>
>>> 2.x based applications *are* in a dead end, with the only exit
>>> being portag
Aahz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Martin v. L?wis wrote:
Such a policy would then translate to a dead end for Python 2.x
based applications.
>>> 2.x based applications *are* in a dead end, with the only exit
>>> being portage to 3.x.
>> The actual end of the dead
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Martin v. L?wis wrote:
>>> Such a policy would then translate to a dead end for Python 2.x
>>> based applications.
>>
>> 2.x based applications *are* in a dead end, with the only exit
>> being portage to 3.x.
>
> The actual end of the dead end just ha
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Such a policy would then translate to a dead end for Python 2.x
>> based applications.
>
> 2.x based applications *are* in a dead end, with the only exit
> being portage to 3.x.
The actual end of the dead end just happens to be in 2013 or so :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick C
> Such a policy would then translate to a dead end for Python 2.x
> based applications.
2.x based applications *are* in a dead end, with the only exit
being portage to 3.x.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.py
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:25 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 2009-04-06 15:21, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>> On 2009-04-02 17:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I propose the following PEP for inclusion to Python 3.1.
>>> Thanks for picking this up.
>>>
On 2009-04-06 15:21, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> On 2009-04-02 17:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> I propose the following PEP for inclusion to Python 3.1.
>> Thanks for picking this up.
>>
>> I'd like to extend the proposal to Python 2.7 and later.