On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/7/23 Alexander Belopolsky :
>> Thanks, everyone who followed up here and on the tracker. I am
>> readying the patch for check in, but as I look back through the
>> messages, I don't really see anyone's answer to the question in the
2010/7/23 Alexander Belopolsky :
> Thanks, everyone who followed up here and on the tracker. I am
> readying the patch for check in, but as I look back through the
> messages, I don't really see anyone's answer to the question in the
> subject:
>
> * Include datetime.py in stdlib or not?
>
> I ho
Thanks, everyone who followed up here and on the tracker. I am
readying the patch for check in, but as I look back through the
messages, I don't really see anyone's answer to the question in the
subject:
* Include datetime.py in stdlib or not?
I hope this means an implied "yes, include." Since
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
>.. and "import _strptime" had to be moved from function level to
> module level after class definitions due to circular dependency of
> _strptime on datetime.
This turned out to be not such a great idea. Importing _strptime at
the mod
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
..
> I can say that all the VM representatives have all said they like the idea.
This is encouraging. Here is an update on the status of datetime.py.
I believe it is mostly ready to move from sandbox to py3k/Lib. The
patch is available on the
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:17, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 3:32 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> That's the idea. We already have contributors from the various VMs who
>> has commit privileges, but they all work in their own repos for
>> convenience. My hope is that if we break the stdlib out into
On 7/7/2010 3:32 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
That's the idea. We already have contributors from the various VMs who
has commit privileges, but they all work in their own repos for
convenience. My hope is that if we break the stdlib out into its own
repository that people simply pull in then other VM
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 20:54, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/6/2010 3:59 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
>
> I am more interested in Brett's overall vision than this particular module.
> I understand that to be one of a stdlib that is separate from CPython and is
> indeed the standard Python library.
>
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/6/2010 3:59 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
[.. skipping more general stdlib discussion see "Python equivalents in
stdlib" thread ..]
>> 2. There are other areas of stdlib that can benefit more from pure
>> python equivalents.
>
> Possibl
On 7/6/2010 3:59 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
I am more interested in Brett's overall vision than this particular
module. I understand that to be one of a stdlib that is separate from
CPython and is indeed the standard Python library.
Questions:
!. Would the other distributions use a stan
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> What do you think? Please reply here or add a comment at
> http://bugs.python.org/issue7989.
(For those that haven't read the tracker discussion, it's long, but
worth skimming to get a better idea of the various points of view).
+1 o
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:59, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> This idea has been discussed extensively in this and other forums and
> I believe it is time to make a decision.
>
> The proposal is to add pure python implementation of datetime module
> to stdlib. The current C implementation will tra
This idea has been discussed extensively in this and other forums and
I believe it is time to make a decision.
The proposal is to add pure python implementation of datetime module
to stdlib. The current C implementation will transparently override
pure python definitions in CPython. Other pytho
13 matches
Mail list logo
