This is my standpoint. The major releases would remove the code that's been marked as "deprecated". You probably would've know for the past 3 versions anyway... On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:08 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> > wrote: > > (That said, I > > do see some merit to doing some extra cleaning at the 4.0 > > boundary, just for mental convenience.) > > A transition from 3.9 to 4.0 that removes a whole lot of deprecated > aliases and such wouldn't be a bad thing. It's technically breaking > backward compat (and thus justifying the major version bump), but any > code broken by it would have been unidiomatic for the past X versions > anyway. > > ChrisA > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/rymg19%40gmail.com > -- Ryan If anybody ever asks me why I prefer C++ to C, my answer will be simple: "It's becauseslejfp23(@#Q*(E*EIdc-SEGFAULT. Wait, I don't think that was nul-terminated." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140310/83737d64/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