Re: Python 3.2 is excellent, but

2011-03-01 Thread Tom Zych
jmfauth wrote: > Well, Python (as 3.2) has never reached this level of excellence, but > __pycache__, no, not for me. > > (I feel better now, after I wrote it.) Could you be more specific? :) -- Tom Zych / freethin...@pobox.com Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. -- http://mail.python.o

Re: Python 3.2 is excellent, but

2011-03-01 Thread Stefan Behnel
jmfauth, 01.03.2011 11:40: __pycache__, no, not for me. This has been discussed before. The 'argument' you presented is usually due to a misunderstanding of how __pycache__ works. Consider reading the PEP. Stefan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Python 3.2 is excellent, but

2011-03-01 Thread jmfauth
Well, Python (as 3.2) has never reached this level of excellence, but __pycache__, no, not for me. (I feel better now, after I wrote it.) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list