On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:45:53AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote: > You seem to want most of all to avoid warning msgs, but __future__ options > don't accomplish that: it's the *point* of __future__ thingies to spit out > warnings about semantics that are going to change. > I don't know that it's a useful point, though. That is, the only comments > I've seen about __future__ from users in practice is from those who are > annoyed by needing to say "__future__" all over the place to get at the new > features they want right away. Alas, I haven't seen evidence that it eases > migration. That could be because it works so well people don't feel a need > to comment about it, but somehow that seems a tad unlikely <wink>. Well, I can tell you that __future__ has definately worked. Without it, I would not have been able to upgrade Python on many of our servers -- and because we don't need newer versions ourselves, they would not likely be installed at all. As it is, I can safely upgrade to the next major version when they come out, instead of having to start a lengthy and very energy-consuming customer-acceptance process. And this anal attitude towards compatibility isn't just me, it's company policy ;) I suspect all companies that maintain python on behalf of third parties are grateful of future. Or at least, the good ones, the others merely _should_ be grateful :) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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