On Fri, Jul 19, 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: >Ping: >> >> I think the renaming of next() to __next__() is a good idea in any >> case. It is distant enough from the other issues that it can be done >> independently of any decisions about __iter__. > > Yeah, it's just a pain that it's been deployed in Python 2.2 since > last December, and by the time 2.3 is out it will probably have been > at least a full year. Worse, 2.2 is voted to be Python-in-a-Tie, > giving that particular idiom a very long lifetime. I simply don't > think we can break compatibility that easily. Remember the endless > threads we've had about the pace of change and stability. We have to > live with warts, alas. And this is a pretty minor one if you ask me. Is this a Pronouncement, or are we still waiting on the results of the survey? Note that several people have suggested a multi-release strategy for fixing this problem; does that make any difference? -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/
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