Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:20:04 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me.
If anyone complains too much, perhaps we can offer to retain the old
ConfigParser as _BuggyConfigParser? (that idea is only partially
tongue-in-cheek...)
Or we can put it in the buggy
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
The good thing about that idea is that maintenance of buggy.py will be so
simple!
It's self-describing, and needs no further documentation. :-)
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake at acm.org
A storm broke loose
On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
The good thing about that idea is that maintenance of buggy.py will be so
simple!
It's self-describing, and needs no further documentation. :-)
And psychologically
On 14/12/2010 17:01, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Steven D'Apranost...@pearwood.info wrote:
The good thing about that idea is that maintenance of buggy.py will be so
simple!
It's self-describing, and needs no
Hi there.
There's one last thing that needs to be done with configparser for 3.2.
Raymond, Fred, Michael and Georg already expressed their approval on that so
unless anybody finds a flaw in the idea expressed below, I'm going to make
the change for 3.2b2:
- the ConfigParser class will be
+1 from me.
If anyone complains too much, perhaps we can offer to retain the old
ConfigParser as _BuggyConfigParser? (that idea is only partially
tongue-in-cheek...)
Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Wiadomość napisana przez Nick Coghlan w dniu 2010-12-14, o godz. 01:20:
+1 from me.
If anyone complains too much, perhaps we can offer to retain the old
ConfigParser as _BuggyConfigParser? (that idea is only partially
tongue-in-cheek...)
We may leave the LegacyInterpolation class if
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:20:04 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me.
If anyone complains too much, perhaps we can offer to retain the old
ConfigParser as _BuggyConfigParser? (that idea is only partially
tongue-in-cheek...)
Or we can put it in the buggy module which
