should these be fixed for python 2.4?

[Alexander Schmolck]

Robert Kern <rkern at ucsd.edu> writes:

>> Anyway, I think this horse has now been beaten to death -- either someone
>> who has the power to make inclusions has been convinced by now or it's
>> not gonna happen (at least not in the immediate future).
>
> Not necessarily. It *is* unlikely that someone who "has the power to make
> inclusions" is going to pick up on this and write an implementation for
> you.

Well, the implementation is quite trivial (and I've posted one).

> However, (and this is an important feature of Python's development) if *you*
> write an implementation, document it, write unit tests for it, and present
> it to the public and python-dev with a good case for its existence, it has a
> pretty good chance of getting in.

Sure, but Martin von Loewis suggested posting a patch for one of my gripes
(pydoc) -- which I did, but didn't think this one substantiated, which
suggests to me that inclusion is not that likely. And whether it gets in is
not important enough for me to invest much more time -- I already have it
amongst my utility functions and I'm extremly occupied otherwise.


> Many (most?) of the active Python core developers don't read c.l.py with
> any frequency. If you have a feature request, post it to the Sourceforge
> bug tracker[1], preferably with a patch implementing the feature, or it's
> almost certain that no-one will pick it up.

OK, I posted a feature request (it's not important enough for me to go
through the hassle of a patch if chances seem slim -- but since I already
spent some time on it I might as well give it a chance as you suggested).

>
> [1] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470

'as