LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/559340043/
On 2019/12/20 14:50:17, Dan Eble wrote:
Can I play it safe by setting up a pure version of the callback that
returns a constant value like before? That would be pure, but I
don't understand whether it would be better.
I tried this for RehearsalMark:
;; It's not clear whether having a pure
On 2019/12/19 21:39:20, c_sorensen wrote:
Although I am not an expert in pure/impure calculations, I think that
you are
misunderstanding this entry in the CG.
I confess, I'm finding it difficult to apprehend this.
But the rehearsal mark will potentially be placed somewhere different
dependi
As I said on the mailing list multiple times, it's actually
a ton of work to make the scripts work with Python 2 _and_
Python 3 at the same time. [...]
I've forgotten that you've already added Python 3.x support to gub, so I
withdraw my comments :-)
https://codereview.appspot.com/545370043/
Reviewers: lemzwerg,
Message:
On 2019/12/20 00:12:25, lemzwerg wrote:
Mhmm, I'm not happy with that. What I can imagine is to *prefer*
Python 3.x
over 2.x.
Is there a reason to enforce 3.x? I thought that all of your recent
work was to
ensure that the scripts work both with 2.x and 3.x
