On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson <musiccomposition at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: >> Sounds like a regression in 2.5 (and in 2.6, and in 3.0). Probably due >> to the switch to the new AST-based compiler. Can you file a bug? I >> think we should leave 2.5 alone (too much risk of breaking code) but >> fix it in 2.6 and 3.0 if we can. > > I think code that uses this is probably already quite broken in some > fundamental way and putting the fix in 2.5 isn't much of a risk. No, it could just be a harmless typo in a long argument list. I really don't want to break code that is apparently working as part of an upgrade from 2.5.2 to 2.5.3. I want people to be completely fearless when it comes to such an upgrade: they should be able to just install it without having to think about testing anything, just like most people routinely install a new minor Linux upgrade pushed by their distribution. 2.6 is a different story, everyone knows they have to do testing before deciding it's safe to upgrade from 2.x to 2.(x+1). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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