[issue2396] Backport memoryview object to Python 2.6

Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Not a release blocker then :-) -- priority: release blocker -> critical ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___

[issue2396] Backport memoryview object to Python 2.6

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I concur. -- nosy: +benjamin.peterson versions: +Python 2.7 -Python 2.6 ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue2396] Backport memoryview object to Python 2.6

Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Not only there may not be enough time, but: 1. the memoryview implementation itself is not finished (that is, in py3k) 2. polishing and documenting the buffer API is more important 3. there doesn't seem to be any use for memoryview objects rig

[issue2396] Backport memoryview object to Python 2.6

A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Is there still time to do the backport for 2.6 at this late date? -- nosy: +akuchling ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __

[issue2396] Backport memoryview object to Python 2.6

Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: But the warning in 2.6 for buffer() says to use memoryview(), which does not exist. So either the backport needs to happen in 2.6 or the warning needs to go away for generic buffer() usage and instead be changed to only occur when the 2to3 fixer

[issue2396] Backport memoryview object to Python 2.6

New submission from Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The memoryview object in Python 2.6 would help in the transition to Python 3.0. It is a lower-priority and could wait until 2.7 if it doesn't get finished. -- components: Interpreter Core messages: 63930 nosy: teoliphant severity: