Ok, now that we've had a week of back and forth about this, let me repeat my "threat". Unless more concerns are brought up in the next 24 hours, can PEP 3333 be accepted? It seems a lot of people are waiting for a decision that enables implementers to go ahead and claim PEP 333[3] compatibility. PEP 444 can take longer.
--Guido On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 January 2011 02:55, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: >> At 05:27 PM 1/7/2011 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote: >>> >>> Another thing though. For output changed to sys.stdout.buffer. For >>> input should we be using sys.stdin.buffer as well if want bytes? >> >> %&$*()&%!!! Sorry, still getting used to this whole Python 3 thing. >> (Honestly, I don't even use Python 2.6 for anything real yet.) >> >> >>> Good thing I tried running this. Did we all assume that someone else >>> was actually running it to check it? :-) >> >> Well, I only recently started changing the examples to actual Python 3, vs >> being the old Python 2 examples. Though, I'm not sure anybody ever ran the >> Python 2 ones. ;-) > > Latest CGI/WSGI bridge example extract from PEP 3333 seems to work > okay for my simple test. > > So, if no more technical problems (vs cosmetic) that anyone else sees, > that is probably it and and we can toss this baby out the door. > > Graham > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com