On 2014-01-25, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith wrote:
>> > In article ,
>> > Chris Angelico wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
>> >> >> Python 2.8j?
>> >> >
>> >> > You're imagining things.
>> >>
>> >> Get
On 2014-01-24 19:56, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> > On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith wrote:
> > > In article
> > > , Chris
> > > Angelico wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> Python 2.8j?
> > >> >
> > >> > You're imaginin
In article ,
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> >> >> Python 2.8j?
> >> >
> >> > You're imagining things.
> >>
> >> Get real... s'not gonna happen.
> >>
> > I wouldn'
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> In this case, the explanation is as funny as the joke.
I have to agree. But hey, it passes the time...
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 1/24/2014 10:57 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
Python 2.8j?
You're imagining things.
Get real... s'not gonna happ
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
>>> >> Python 2.8j?
>>> >
>>> > You're imagining things.
>>>
>>> Get real... s'not gonna happen.
>>>
>> I wo
On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
>> >> Python 2.8j?
>> >
>> > You're imagining things.
>>
>> Get real... s'not gonna happen.
>>
> I wouldn't bet on that. The situation keeps getting tensor and
> tens
On 24/01/2014 09:33, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
[double spacing snipped for the 10**infinity time]
Le vendredi 24 janvier 2014 01:42:41 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
This will never happen. Python 3 is the escape from several dead-ends in
Python 2. The biggest in impact is the use of un-accente
Le vendredi 24 janvier 2014 01:42:41 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
>
>
>
> This will never happen. Python 3 is the escape from several dead-ends in
>
> Python 2. The biggest in impact is the use of un-accented latin chars as
>
> text in a global, unicode world.
>
>
>
Three days of discuss
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
>> >> Python 2.8j?
>> >
>> > You're imagining things.
>>
>> Get real... s'not gonna happen.
>>
> I wouldn't bet on that. The situation keeps getting t
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> >> Python 2.8j?
> >
> > You're imagining things.
>
> Get real... s'not gonna happen.
>
I wouldn't bet on that. The situation keeps getting tensor and tensor.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
>> Python 2.8j?
>
> You're imagining things.
Get real... s'not gonna happen.
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article ,
MRAB wrote:
> On 2014-01-24 01:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >> Burying 'Python 2.8' was the purpose of PEP 404. It is kind of bizarre.
> >> Developers informally said 'No 2.8'. People would not believe that. So
> >> developers
On 2014-01-24 01:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Burying 'Python 2.8' was the purpose of PEP 404. It is kind of bizarre.
Developers informally said 'No 2.8'. People would not believe that. So
developers formally said 'No 2.8'. They even inverted th
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/23/2014 8:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> The noise asking for a 2.8 isn't going to die down any time soon.
>
> I suspect you meant "isn't going to die completely"
Sorry, yeah. "die off" is the expression I should have used.
Presumably
On 1/23/2014 8:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
The noise asking for a 2.8 isn't going to die down any time soon.
I suspect you meant "isn't going to die completely"
It'll flare up again every time there's a significant event in the
2.7's end of life: when it goes into source-only support, when
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Burying 'Python 2.8' was the purpose of PEP 404. It is kind of bizarre.
> Developers informally said 'No 2.8'. People would not believe that. So
> developers formally said 'No 2.8'. They even inverted the purpose of PEP to
> make the formal an
On 1/23/2014 4:57 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
http://regebro.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/the-potential-for-a-python-2-8/
I pretty much agree with the author.
Except for one paragraph, which I consider a disservice to readers.
"Does that mean a Python 2.8 can not happen? No, it can. If the Python
"c
18 matches
Mail list logo
