Hello,
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:08:56 +0200
Victor Stinner wrote:
> I proposed PEP 511 "API for code transformers" for Python 3.6 (in
> 2016) and it was rejected:
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0511/#rejection-notice
Well, it wasn't rejected, it was self-rejected on the thought-crime
groun
Hello,
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:23:08 -0700
Guido van Rossum wrote:
[]
> > How does this "similar thing" compare to the recently announced
> > imphook module?
> >
>
> For one, pyxl is a better name. :-)
I would humbly disagree ;-).
> Seriously, as long as the purpose is to allow using a diff
I proposed PEP 511 "API for code transformers" for Python 3.6 (in
2016) and it was rejected:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0511/#rejection-notice
"""
This PEP was rejected by its author.
This PEP was seen as blessing new Python-like programming languages
which are close but incompatible wit
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:16 PM Glenn Linderman
wrote:
> On 4/19/2021 12:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > We had a similar thing at Dropbox, where `# coding: pyxl` would enable
> > a preprocessor that allowed HTML embedded in the Python code. It
> > translated this to function calls and string
On 4/19/2021 12:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
We had a similar thing at Dropbox, where `# coding: pyxl` would enable
a preprocessor that allowed HTML embedded in the Python code. It
translated this to function calls and string literals.
There were however several drawbacks:
- Installing the
We had a similar thing at Dropbox, where `# coding: pyxl` would enable a
preprocessor that allowed HTML embedded in the Python code. It translated
this to function calls and string literals.
There were however several drawbacks:
- Installing the codec is a bit tricky, and if you don't have it the
