From MHammond@skippinet.com.au Wed Sep 11 13:19:58 1996 From: MHammond@skippinet.com.au (Mark Hammond) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:19:58 +1000 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] OLE Sig? Message-ID: <199609111226.WAA27301@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au> Hi all, I'd like to propose an OLE SIG. This SIG would deal with implementation issues for Python and OLE. Among its objectives would be common modules/code for OLE calls to/from Python, and standard techniques for dealing with OLE arguments. This would be a fairly limited scope SIG - in fact, if I had the resources to setup a mailing list, I would keep it off python.org. But a few of us are starting to deal with these issues, and a few people on the Pythonwin SIG have indicated they have some experience with OLE - but in general the topics would be too low-level for the general Pythonwin SIG. If there is no string objection to this, I can draft the necessary blurbs... Mark. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hammond - MHammond@skippinet.com.au Check out Python - _the_ language for the Web/CGI/Windows/MFC/Unix/etc & ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fredrik_lundh@ivab.se Wed Sep 11 13:59:35 1996 From: fredrik_lundh@ivab.se (Fredrik Lundh) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:59:35 +0200 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] OLE Sig? In-Reply-To: <199609111226.WAA27301@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au> (MHammond@skippinet.com.au) Message-ID: <9609111259.AA15082@arnold.image.ivab.se> > I'd like to propose an OLE SIG. Well, I wouldn't mind seeing this discussion on the pythonwin-list, but I see no direct arguments against your proposal either. So go ahead and write a blurb... Cheers /F ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fredrik_lundh@ivab.se Wed Sep 11 13:59:35 1996 From: fredrik_lundh@ivab.se (Fredrik Lundh) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:59:35 +0200 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] OLE Sig? In-Reply-To: <199609111226.WAA27301@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au> (MHammond@skippinet.com.au) Message-ID: <9609111259.AA15082@arnold.image.ivab.se> > I'd like to propose an OLE SIG. Well, I wouldn't mind seeing this discussion on the pythonwin-list, but I see no direct arguments against your proposal either. So go ahead and write a blurb... Cheers /F ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Thu Sep 19 19:09:15 1996 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:09:15 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? Message-ID: <199609191809.OAA06841@monty> I know I'm supposed to be working on other stuff, but I'd like to at least start a discussion on weeding some of the SIGs that appear particularly idle. My list of SIGS that could perhaps be tossed includes: locator -- unless Jim F's (interesting!) proposal finds a home here, it seems that this kind of stuff is best discussed in a different forum gui -- nothing seems to be happening, so why leave it around? db -- now that the db modules have been given away, what will become of them? objc -- perhaps merge with a possible Next-related SIG? progenv -- I'd hate to see this go, but nothing is happening... efactory -- I can't remember the discussion to get this started, and the archive shows it's not really happening... I'm not saying "toss these" -- I'm merely challenging these SIGs to prove there's a need for them. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Barry A. Warsaw" Message-ID: <199609191842.OAA02628@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> >>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum writes: GvR> efactory -- I can't remember the discussion to get this GvR> started, and the archive shows it's not really happening... I think Michael started this one up, but I don't know if that project every got off the ground? -Barry ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From mclay@fermi Fri Sep 20 12:43:25 1996 From: mclay@fermi (Michael McLay) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:43:25 GMT Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? In-Reply-To: <199609191809.OAA06841@monty> References: <199609191809.OAA06841@monty> Message-ID: <199609201143.LAA05328@fermi.eeel.nist.gov> Guido van Rossum writes: > I know I'm supposed to be working on other stuff, but I'd like to at > least start a discussion on weeding some of the SIGs that appear > particularly idle. My list of SIGS that could perhaps be tossed > includes: How about just separating the list into two section. Put

Inactive SIGS

at the end of the current list and then move all the groups that haven't been posted in for three months in that section. Given infinite time and money this could of course be automated, but for now it would be more efficient to just cut and paste in emacs.:-) > > locator -- unless Jim F's (interesting!) proposal finds a home here, > it seems that this kind of stuff is best discussed in a > different forum Jim's posting just reopened this discussion. It's only idle because of a lack of people with time to contribute. Ok, let's move the next four to the inactive section. > gui -- nothing seems to be happening, so why leave it around? > > db -- now that the db modules have been given away, what will become > of them? > > objc -- perhaps merge with a possible Next-related SIG? > > progenv -- I'd hate to see this go, but nothing is happening... > > efactory -- I can't remember the discussion to get this started, and > the archive shows it's not really happening... The efactory was started a little early, but I do see an increase in interest in using Python for factory control applications. I'm in the process of writing up some web pages on the subject which might help stimulate participation in the group. Michael ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Fri Sep 20 18:46:02 1996 From: klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Ken Manheimer) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? In-Reply-To: <199609201143.LAA05328@fermi.eeel.nist.gov> Message-ID: Re retirement of the progenv sig. On one hand, it does not seem to be needed for any active, sustained collaborations. On the other hand, it now provides a home (last changed in early september) for fred drake's parser module development. If the progenv sig goes away, we should find another home for it - fred, any preferences, suggestions? In general, i'm quite impressed with how useful some sigs have been, as channels for targeted collaboration, and feel the experiment is a distinct success. I don't think we need to place too much burden on justifying the creation of a sig, as long as we keep vigilant about retiring ones that are no longer necessary. Otherwise it'll be more difficult for people to find the active ones... Ken Manheimer klm@cnri.reston.va.us 703 620-8990 x268 (orporation for National Research |nitiatives # If you appreciate Python, consider joining the PSA! # # . # ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From gstein@microsoft.com Fri Sep 20 19:33:16 1996 From: gstein@microsoft.com (Greg Stein) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:33:16 -0700 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? Message-ID: I'd support moving the db-sig to "inactive," although I do want to try to find some time to update the DatabaseAPI document and actually include a link to it from the db-sig page. sigh... maybe I can manage to get to it this weekend. Moving forward, if somebody *does* propose to keep db-sig active, then I wouldn't be opposed to another "owner" as I don't think that my current business/personal directions coincide with it any more... -g >---------- >From: Ken Manheimer[SMTP:klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US] >Sent: Friday, September 20, 1996 10:46 AM >To: meta-sig@python.org >Cc: fdrake@CNRI.Reston.Va.US >Subject: Re: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? > >Re retirement of the progenv sig. On one hand, it does not seem to be >needed for any active, sustained collaborations. On the other hand, it >now provides a home (last changed in early september) for fred drake's >parser module development. If the progenv sig goes away, we should find >another home for it - fred, any preferences, suggestions? > >In general, i'm quite impressed with how useful some sigs have been, as >channels for targeted collaboration, and feel the experiment is a >distinct success. I don't think we need to place too much burden >on justifying the creation of a sig, as long as we keep vigilant about >retiring ones that are no longer necessary. Otherwise it'll be more >difficult for people to find the active ones... > >Ken Manheimer klm@cnri.reston.va.us 703 620-8990 x268 > (orporation for National Research |nitiatives > > # If you appreciate Python, consider joining the PSA! # > # . # > > > >================= >META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists > >send messages to: meta-sig@python.org >administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org >================= > ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From paul@digicool.com Sat Sep 21 19:49:23 1996 From: paul@digicool.com (Paul Everitt) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:49:23 -0500 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? References: <199609191809.OAA06841@monty> Message-ID: <324438B3.8B3@digicool.com> Guido van Rossum wrote: > locator -- unless Jim F's (interesting!) proposal finds a home here, > it seems that this kind of stuff is best discussed in a > different forum Prior to Jim's proposal, I would have agreed. However, let's keep it going until the end of our project, and then evaluate if it needs to be maintained. -- Paul Everitt Digital Creations paul@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ## Python is my favorite language ## ## http://www.python.org/ ## ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From me@galaxies.uwyo.edu Thu Sep 19 21:59:12 1996 From: me@galaxies.uwyo.edu (Earl Spillar) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 14:59:12 -0600 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Obj-C sig Message-ID: <9609192059.AA00799@galaxies.uwyo.edu> I too would like to see the ObjC continue; I am hoping to get more active as soon as I can get 1.4 built on my Openstep platform. I guess that's not much defense, just a hint of commitment of participation from me in the future. It would make sense to merge it into a *step sig; most of us are probably using both. An example is my current problem building 1.4b3 on Openstep. Has anyone have any luck? 1.3 built without even patching. The two obvious problems that showed up as errors on the build were a redefinition of hypot, which was easy to fix with some /* */ and a dangling linker reference to strdup (which really bothers me because it looks to me like it's in 1.3 but doesn't bomb for some reason... ) Anyway, I patched that too, but the executable dies. My first susption is my patch though. Earl Spillar spillar@uwyo.edu. ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Barry A. Warsaw" Message-ID: <199609191842.OAA02626@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> >>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum writes: GvR> I'd like to at least start a discussion on weeding some of GvR> the SIGs that appear particularly idle. My list of SIGS that GvR> could perhaps be tossed includes: GvR> objc -- perhaps merge with a possible Next-related SIG? GvR> I'm not saying "toss these" -- I'm merely challenging these GvR> SIGs to prove there's a need for them. The objc-sig has shown some recent life, with the posting of Lele Gaifax's new Objective-C modules. Lele in fact started his own small mailing list but I've (hopefully ;-) persuaded him to move that to the objc-sig. `objc-sig' might be a bad name for it since I have no personal objection to expanding the sigs mission to include NeXTSTEP/OpenStep porting issues. Objective-C is a darn good language in its own right, but the majority of its use is probably by *Step programmers. I'm for keeping it around as-is, or perhaps changing the name to `openstep-sig'. -Barry ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fdrake@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Wed Sep 25 22:03:38 1996 From: fdrake@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Fred L. Drake) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 17:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? In-Reply-To: from "Ken Manheimer" at Sep 20, 96 01:46:02 pm Message-ID: <199609252103.RAA07270@weyr.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Ken Manheimer wrote: > Re retirement of the progenv sig. On one hand, it does not seem to be > needed for any active, sustained collaborations. On the other hand, it > now provides a home (last changed in early september) for fred drake's > parser module development. If the progenv sig goes away, we should find > another home for it - fred, any preferences, suggestions? Given the enormous popular response to the parser module, I'll be the first to say I don't really care. If there's no interest in the SIG, it can go away. With my own schedule, any time I invest in my development environment will be spent doing things the way I think they should be, and the result may not be something other people are interested in (this is the track record...), so if there's no group to discuss it in, it won't really matter. Besides, there's not a lot of time in my book for discussion. ;-( -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake@cnri.reston.va.us Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 20191-5434 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From MHammond@skippinet.com.au Wed Sep 11 13:19:58 1996 From: MHammond@skippinet.com.au (Mark Hammond) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:19:58 +1000 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] OLE Sig? Message-ID: <199609111226.WAA27301@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au> Hi all, I'd like to propose an OLE SIG. This SIG would deal with implementation issues for Python and OLE. Among its objectives would be common modules/code for OLE calls to/from Python, and standard techniques for dealing with OLE arguments. This would be a fairly limited scope SIG - in fact, if I had the resources to setup a mailing list, I would keep it off python.org. But a few of us are starting to deal with these issues, and a few people on the Pythonwin SIG have indicated they have some experience with OLE - but in general the topics would be too low-level for the general Pythonwin SIG. If there is no string objection to this, I can draft the necessary blurbs... Mark. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hammond - MHammond@skippinet.com.au Check out Python - _the_ language for the Web/CGI/Windows/MFC/Unix/etc & ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fredrik_lundh@ivab.se Wed Sep 11 13:59:35 1996 From: fredrik_lundh@ivab.se (Fredrik Lundh) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:59:35 +0200 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] OLE Sig? In-Reply-To: <199609111226.WAA27301@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au> (MHammond@skippinet.com.au) Message-ID: <9609111259.AA15082@arnold.image.ivab.se> > I'd like to propose an OLE SIG. Well, I wouldn't mind seeing this discussion on the pythonwin-list, but I see no direct arguments against your proposal either. So go ahead and write a blurb... Cheers /F ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fredrik_lundh@ivab.se Wed Sep 11 13:59:35 1996 From: fredrik_lundh@ivab.se (Fredrik Lundh) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:59:35 +0200 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] OLE Sig? In-Reply-To: <199609111226.WAA27301@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au> (MHammond@skippinet.com.au) Message-ID: <9609111259.AA15082@arnold.image.ivab.se> > I'd like to propose an OLE SIG. Well, I wouldn't mind seeing this discussion on the pythonwin-list, but I see no direct arguments against your proposal either. So go ahead and write a blurb... Cheers /F ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Thu Sep 19 19:09:15 1996 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:09:15 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? Message-ID: <199609191809.OAA06841@monty> I know I'm supposed to be working on other stuff, but I'd like to at least start a discussion on weeding some of the SIGs that appear particularly idle. My list of SIGS that could perhaps be tossed includes: locator -- unless Jim F's (interesting!) proposal finds a home here, it seems that this kind of stuff is best discussed in a different forum gui -- nothing seems to be happening, so why leave it around? db -- now that the db modules have been given away, what will become of them? objc -- perhaps merge with a possible Next-related SIG? progenv -- I'd hate to see this go, but nothing is happening... efactory -- I can't remember the discussion to get this started, and the archive shows it's not really happening... I'm not saying "toss these" -- I'm merely challenging these SIGs to prove there's a need for them. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Barry A. Warsaw" Message-ID: <199609191842.OAA02628@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> >>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum writes: GvR> efactory -- I can't remember the discussion to get this GvR> started, and the archive shows it's not really happening... I think Michael started this one up, but I don't know if that project every got off the ground? -Barry ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From mclay@fermi Fri Sep 20 12:43:25 1996 From: mclay@fermi (Michael McLay) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:43:25 GMT Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? In-Reply-To: <199609191809.OAA06841@monty> References: <199609191809.OAA06841@monty> Message-ID: <199609201143.LAA05328@fermi.eeel.nist.gov> Guido van Rossum writes: > I know I'm supposed to be working on other stuff, but I'd like to at > least start a discussion on weeding some of the SIGs that appear > particularly idle. My list of SIGS that could perhaps be tossed > includes: How about just separating the list into two section. Put

Inactive SIGS

at the end of the current list and then move all the groups that haven't been posted in for three months in that section. Given infinite time and money this could of course be automated, but for now it would be more efficient to just cut and paste in emacs.:-) > > locator -- unless Jim F's (interesting!) proposal finds a home here, > it seems that this kind of stuff is best discussed in a > different forum Jim's posting just reopened this discussion. It's only idle because of a lack of people with time to contribute. Ok, let's move the next four to the inactive section. > gui -- nothing seems to be happening, so why leave it around? > > db -- now that the db modules have been given away, what will become > of them? > > objc -- perhaps merge with a possible Next-related SIG? > > progenv -- I'd hate to see this go, but nothing is happening... > > efactory -- I can't remember the discussion to get this started, and > the archive shows it's not really happening... The efactory was started a little early, but I do see an increase in interest in using Python for factory control applications. I'm in the process of writing up some web pages on the subject which might help stimulate participation in the group. Michael ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Fri Sep 20 18:46:02 1996 From: klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Ken Manheimer) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? In-Reply-To: <199609201143.LAA05328@fermi.eeel.nist.gov> Message-ID: Re retirement of the progenv sig. On one hand, it does not seem to be needed for any active, sustained collaborations. On the other hand, it now provides a home (last changed in early september) for fred drake's parser module development. If the progenv sig goes away, we should find another home for it - fred, any preferences, suggestions? In general, i'm quite impressed with how useful some sigs have been, as channels for targeted collaboration, and feel the experiment is a distinct success. I don't think we need to place too much burden on justifying the creation of a sig, as long as we keep vigilant about retiring ones that are no longer necessary. Otherwise it'll be more difficult for people to find the active ones... Ken Manheimer klm@cnri.reston.va.us 703 620-8990 x268 (orporation for National Research |nitiatives # If you appreciate Python, consider joining the PSA! # # . # ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From gstein@microsoft.com Fri Sep 20 19:33:16 1996 From: gstein@microsoft.com (Greg Stein) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:33:16 -0700 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? Message-ID: I'd support moving the db-sig to "inactive," although I do want to try to find some time to update the DatabaseAPI document and actually include a link to it from the db-sig page. sigh... maybe I can manage to get to it this weekend. Moving forward, if somebody *does* propose to keep db-sig active, then I wouldn't be opposed to another "owner" as I don't think that my current business/personal directions coincide with it any more... -g >---------- >From: Ken Manheimer[SMTP:klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US] >Sent: Friday, September 20, 1996 10:46 AM >To: meta-sig@python.org >Cc: fdrake@CNRI.Reston.Va.US >Subject: Re: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? > >Re retirement of the progenv sig. On one hand, it does not seem to be >needed for any active, sustained collaborations. On the other hand, it >now provides a home (last changed in early september) for fred drake's >parser module development. If the progenv sig goes away, we should find >another home for it - fred, any preferences, suggestions? > >In general, i'm quite impressed with how useful some sigs have been, as >channels for targeted collaboration, and feel the experiment is a >distinct success. I don't think we need to place too much burden >on justifying the creation of a sig, as long as we keep vigilant about >retiring ones that are no longer necessary. Otherwise it'll be more >difficult for people to find the active ones... > >Ken Manheimer klm@cnri.reston.va.us 703 620-8990 x268 > (orporation for National Research |nitiatives > > # If you appreciate Python, consider joining the PSA! # > # . # > > > >================= >META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists > >send messages to: meta-sig@python.org >administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org >================= > ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From paul@digicool.com Sat Sep 21 19:49:23 1996 From: paul@digicool.com (Paul Everitt) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:49:23 -0500 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? References: <199609191809.OAA06841@monty> Message-ID: <324438B3.8B3@digicool.com> Guido van Rossum wrote: > locator -- unless Jim F's (interesting!) proposal finds a home here, > it seems that this kind of stuff is best discussed in a > different forum Prior to Jim's proposal, I would have agreed. However, let's keep it going until the end of our project, and then evaluate if it needs to be maintained. -- Paul Everitt Digital Creations paul@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ## Python is my favorite language ## ## http://www.python.org/ ## ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From me@galaxies.uwyo.edu Thu Sep 19 21:59:12 1996 From: me@galaxies.uwyo.edu (Earl Spillar) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 14:59:12 -0600 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Obj-C sig Message-ID: <9609192059.AA00799@galaxies.uwyo.edu> I too would like to see the ObjC continue; I am hoping to get more active as soon as I can get 1.4 built on my Openstep platform. I guess that's not much defense, just a hint of commitment of participation from me in the future. It would make sense to merge it into a *step sig; most of us are probably using both. An example is my current problem building 1.4b3 on Openstep. Has anyone have any luck? 1.3 built without even patching. The two obvious problems that showed up as errors on the build were a redefinition of hypot, which was easy to fix with some /* */ and a dangling linker reference to strdup (which really bothers me because it looks to me like it's in 1.3 but doesn't bomb for some reason... ) Anyway, I patched that too, but the executable dies. My first susption is my patch though. Earl Spillar spillar@uwyo.edu. ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Barry A. Warsaw" Message-ID: <199609191842.OAA02626@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> >>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum writes: GvR> I'd like to at least start a discussion on weeding some of GvR> the SIGs that appear particularly idle. My list of SIGS that GvR> could perhaps be tossed includes: GvR> objc -- perhaps merge with a possible Next-related SIG? GvR> I'm not saying "toss these" -- I'm merely challenging these GvR> SIGs to prove there's a need for them. The objc-sig has shown some recent life, with the posting of Lele Gaifax's new Objective-C modules. Lele in fact started his own small mailing list but I've (hopefully ;-) persuaded him to move that to the objc-sig. `objc-sig' might be a bad name for it since I have no personal objection to expanding the sigs mission to include NeXTSTEP/OpenStep porting issues. Objective-C is a darn good language in its own right, but the majority of its use is probably by *Step programmers. I'm for keeping it around as-is, or perhaps changing the name to `openstep-sig'. -Barry ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fdrake@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Wed Sep 25 22:03:38 1996 From: fdrake@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Fred L. Drake) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 17:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] SIG cleanup? In-Reply-To: from "Ken Manheimer" at Sep 20, 96 01:46:02 pm Message-ID: <199609252103.RAA07270@weyr.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Ken Manheimer wrote: > Re retirement of the progenv sig. On one hand, it does not seem to be > needed for any active, sustained collaborations. On the other hand, it > now provides a home (last changed in early september) for fred drake's > parser module development. If the progenv sig goes away, we should find > another home for it - fred, any preferences, suggestions? Given the enormous popular response to the parser module, I'll be the first to say I don't really care. If there's no interest in the SIG, it can go away. With my own schedule, any time I invest in my development environment will be spent doing things the way I think they should be, and the result may not be something other people are interested in (this is the track record...), so if there's no group to discuss it in, it won't really matter. Besides, there's not a lot of time in my book for discussion. ;-( -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake@cnri.reston.va.us Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 20191-5434 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org =================