Re: Declaring PEP 3333 accepted (was: PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0)

Ok, now that we've had a week of back and forth about this, let me
repeat my "threat". Unless more concerns are brought up in the next 24
hours, can PEP 3333 be accepted? It seems a lot of people are waiting
for a decision that enables implementers to go ahead and claim PEP
333[3] compatibility. PEP 444 can take longer.

--Guido

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Graham Dumpleton
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 January 2011 02:55, P.J. Eby <pje-Wh6+Hckhi6HFNGf7iClzIwC/[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 05:27 PM 1/7/2011 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>
>>> Another thing though. For output changed to sys.stdout.buffer. For
>>> input should we be using sys.stdin.buffer as well if want bytes?
>>
>> %&$*()&%!!!  Sorry, still getting used to this whole Python 3 thing.
>>  (Honestly, I don't even use Python 2.6 for anything real yet.)
>>
>>
>>> Good thing I tried running this. Did we all assume that someone else
>>> was actually running it to check it? :-)
>>
>> Well, I only recently started changing the examples to actual Python 3, vs
>> being the old Python 2 examples.  Though, I'm not sure anybody ever ran the
>> Python 2 ones.  ;-)
>
> Latest CGI/WSGI bridge example extract from PEP 3333 seems to work
> okay for my simple test.
>
> So, if no more technical problems (vs cosmetic) that anyone else sees,
> that is probably it and and we can toss this baby out the door.
>
> Graham
>



-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org