> > If we end up adopting (b), what can we do to Python 2.2 that doesn't > > break the "bug-fixes-only" promise of that branch? > > Well, from my POV, given that the PEP is mostly clear about the > intent, fixing the implementation to match the PEP precisely matches > the "bug-fix only" rule. We've been trying to move away from > "reference defined by implementation", and this seems like a perfect > opportunity to exercise it. Um, our docs are scattered enough that we prefer not to break anything (at least not in a bugfix release) that might have been useful before. Given that even Tim didn't find this in the PEP upon his first two readings, and that simple experimentation with the implementation shows otherwise, and that I at first misremembered my own ruling before I found it in the PEP, I'd say that *if* there's a useful use of this, we shouldn't break that in the 2.2 branch. 2.3 is a different issue. --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