A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-April/022510.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: Stability and change

[Python-Dev] Re: Stability and change [Python-Dev] Re: Stability and changeGuido van Rossum guido@python.org
Sun, 07 Apr 2002 10:34:11 -0400
> > (2) Was the pain worth it, or would you prefer we'd spent more time on
> >     being more backwards compatible?
> 
> fwiw, I think it would be a really good idea to decouple (large
> portions of) the standard library from the interpreter core, and
> keep the same code base running on multiple versions.
> 
> if not else, it would force the core developers to "share the
> pain" ;-)

I thought Gordon was saying that most of the pain was to fix code that
*accidentally* worked in 1.5.2 but broke in 2.0.  Whether or not you
fix that in a backwards-compatible way, we've all shared that pain
already.

Other than sharing the pain, I don't see much of an advantage.

--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