On 3/14/07, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > > Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > At 06:47 PM 3/14/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > > > >> Phillip J. Eby schrieb: > >> > >>> This backwards-incompatible change is therefore contrary to policy and > >>> should be reverted, pending a proper transition plan for the change > >>> (such as introduction of an alternative API and deprecation of the > >>> existing one.) > >>> > >> I'm clearly opposed to this proposal, or else I wouldn't have committed > >> the change in the first place. > >> > > > > That much is obvious. But I haven't seen any explanation as to why > > explicitly-documented and explicitly-tested behavior should be treated > as a > > bug in policy terms, just because people don't like the documented and > > tested behavior. > > > > > Because it's clearly a bug and has even been shown to fix bugs in > current code ? > > Honestly it is this sort of pointless prevarication that gives > python-dev a bad name. However, changing documented, tested behaviour without warning gives Python an even worse name. I agree with PJE that the change is the wrong thing to do, simply because it sets (yet another) precedent. If providing an alternate API with clearer semantics is too 'heavy-weight' a solution and warning is for some reason unacceptable (I don't see why; all the arguments against warning there go for *any* warning in Python) -- then the problem isn't bad enough to fix it by breaking other code. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070314/76d32d75/attachment.html
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4