Le vendredi 29 juillet 2011 19:01:06, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:28:43 +0200
Victor Stinner
Le 29/07/2011 19:01, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
I will add your alternative to the PEP (except if you would like to do
that yourself?). If I understood correctly, you propose to:
* rename codecs.open() to codecs.open_stream()
* change codecs.open() to reuse open() (and so
On 8/11/2011 3:31 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le 29/07/2011 19:01, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
I will add your alternative to the PEP (except if you would like to do
that yourself?). If I understood correctly, you propose to:
* rename codecs.open() to codecs.open_stream()
* change codecs.open()
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 8/11/2011 3:31 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Ok, most people prefer this option. Should I modify the PEP to move
this option has the first/main proposition (move my proposition as an
alternative?), or can the PEP be validated
Le 28/07/2011 11:28, Victor Stinner a écrit :
Please do keep the original implementation
around (e.g. renamed to codecs.open_stream()), though, so that it's
still possible to get easy-to-use access to codec StreamReader/Writers.
I will add your alternative to the PEP (except if you would like
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:28:43 +0200
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
I will add your alternative to the PEP (except if you would like to do
that yourself?). If I understood correctly, you propose to:
* rename codecs.open() to codecs.open_stream()
* change
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:28:43 +0200
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
I will add your alternative to the PEP (except if you would like to do
that yourself?). If I understood correctly, you propose to:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:28:43 +0200
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
I will add your alternative to the PEP (except if you would
Victor Stinner wrote:
Le 28/07/2011 11:28, Victor Stinner a écrit :
Please do keep the original implementation
around (e.g. renamed to codecs.open_stream()), though, so that it's
still possible to get easy-to-use access to codec StreamReader/Writers.
I will add your alternative to the PEP
Le 28/07/2011 06:10, Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
there any reason to continue using codecs.open()?
It's the easiest way to write Unicode friendly code that spans both 2.x and 3.x.
Even on 2.6, where the io module exists?
io on 2.6 is fairly broken and dead slow. The advantage of
Le 28/07/2011 11:03, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi,
Three weeks ago, I posted a draft on my PEP on this mailing list. I
tried to include all remarks you made, and the PEP is now online:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0400/
It's now unclear to me if the PEP will be
Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi,
Three weeks ago, I posted a draft on my PEP on this mailing list. I
tried to include all remarks you made, and the PEP is now online:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0400/
It's now unclear to me if the PEP will be accepted or rejected. I don't
know what
Hi,
Three weeks ago, I posted a draft on my PEP on this mailing list. I
tried to include all remarks you made, and the PEP is now online:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0400/
It's now unclear to me if the PEP will be accepted or rejected. I don't
know what to do to move forward. I
Hi,
Three weeks ago, I posted a draft on my PEP on this mailing list. I
tried to include all remarks you made, and the PEP is now online:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0400/
It's now unclear to me if the PEP will be accepted or rejected. I don't
know what to do to move forward.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
Hi,
Three weeks ago, I posted a draft on my PEP on this mailing list. I tried to
include all remarks you made, and the PEP is now online:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0400/
It's now unclear to me if
Le 28/07/2011 00:36, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
Sorry Victor, I somehow didn't see that message even though I received
it (I probably thought it was a continuation of the python-dev thread
which I've been ignoring).
No problem.
no, there's no particular hurry
That's why it's a deprecation
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
Le 28/07/2011 00:36, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
Sorry Victor, I somehow didn't see that message even though I received
it (I probably thought it was a continuation of the python-dev thread
which I've been
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Users of codecs.open() or users of codecs.Stream* classes?
I would think both. Is there any reason to continue using codecs.open()?
It's the easiest way to write Unicode friendly code that spans both 2.x and 3.x.
The
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Users of codecs.open() or users of codecs.Stream* classes?
I would think both. Is there any reason to continue using codecs.open()?
It's the
2011/7/27 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Users of codecs.open() or users of codecs.Stream* classes?
I would think both. Is there any reason to
20 matches
Mail list logo
