Never mind, I found the patch and the issue. I really think that the *PEP* is ready for inclusion after the open issues are changed into something like Discussion or Future Work, and after adding a more prominent link to the issue with the patch. Then the *patch* can be reviewed some more until it is ready -- it looks very close already.
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Guido van Rossum firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Going over the open issues:
- Parallel arrays or arrays of tuples? I think the API should require
an array of tuples. It is trivial to zip up parallel arrays to the required format, while if you have an array of tuples, extracting the parallel arrays is slightly more cumbersome. Also for manipulating of the raw data, an array of tuples makes it easier to do insertions or removals without worrying about losing the correspondence between the arrays.
- Requiring concrete sequences as opposed to iterators sounds fine.
I'm guessing that good algorithms for doing certain calculations in a single pass, assuming the full input doesn't fit in memory, are quite different from good algorithms for doing the same calculations without having that worry. (Just like you can't expect to use the same code to do a good job of sorting in-memory and on-disk data.)
- Postponing some algorithms to Python 3.5 sounds fine.
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Ethan Furman email@example.com wrote:
On 09/08/2013 06:52 AM, Ryan wrote:
...what's a PEP dictator?
The person tasked with deciding on the fate of an individual PEP.
-- ~Ethan~ _______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)