[Python-Dev] Should I postpone PEP 558 (locals() semantics) to Python 3.9?
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Fri May 31 12:43:20 EDT 2019
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri May 31 12:43:20 EDT 2019
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Should I postpone PEP 558 (locals() semantics) to Python 3.9?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Expected stability of PyCode_New() and types.CodeType() signatures
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 5/31/2019 6:20 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Fri., 31 May 2019, 6:34 pm Nathaniel Smith, <njs at pobox.com > <mailto:njs at pobox.com>> wrote: > > I wouldn't mind having a little more breathing room. It's frustrating > to miss the train, but these bugs are several decades old so I guess > nothing terrible will happen if their fixes get delayed to 3.9. Agreed. > And I could put that extra time to good use, as starting to flesh out > the proxy implementation showed that we're missing a lot of scaffolding > to help make it easier to define new low level mapping types without > duplicating a lot of code. > > I'll update the PEP headers accordingly. I believe some of your suggested doc change is true now, will remain true, and improves on the current locals entry. No PEP approval is needed for this much. -- Terry Jan Reedy
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Should I postpone PEP 558 (locals() semantics) to Python 3.9?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Expected stability of PyCode_New() and types.CodeType() signatures
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list