guido wrote:
> I'm proposing to accept PEP 278 and let Jack check it in.
>> There will probably be some small issues with the code (though it
> passes the test suite on my Linux box), but I expect the only way to
> tease those out is to check it in first.
>> Jack did an admirable job of answering all questions about the patch,
> adding doc patches and unit tests, and so on.
>> Unless there's significant uproar about this within 48 hours, I'll
> approve the PEP.
I maintain that a separate constructor (e.g. textfile) would be
a much cleaner solution.
it's a completely different kind of file object, after all.
other than that, I see no problems with concept and implementation
(you should have done it this way from the start ;-)
</F>
