Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sun Aug 17 07:34:16 CEST 2014

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?
• Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On 17 August 2014 15:08, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> I think this would be a great topic for a blog post. Once you've written it
> I can even bless it by Tweeting about it. :-)

Sounds like a plan - I'll try to put together something coherent this week :)

> PS. Why isn't PEP 387 accepted yet?

Not sure - it mostly looks correct to me. I suspect it just fell off
the radar since it's a "describe what we're already doing anyway" kind
of document.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

---

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?
• Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 4000 to explicitly declare we won't be doing a Py3k style compatibility break again?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list