RetroSearch Browse

Thu Sep 2 21:37:47 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-September/048556.html

Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>If there is a fallback already, why do you want the backport? Just
>>use the fallback.
> 
> 
> Because the fallback is slower?

This, to me, is a poor reason to break the backwards/forwards
compatibility of binary modules. Yes, modules _could_ be written
to do the right thing, and cx_Oracle might. But then someone
else comes along and uses it, and notices that it works on 2.3.5,
so makes a 2.3 binary package. And people on older 2.3's get a
broken package.

I'm really really unconvinced that this is a good idea.

Anthony

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-September/048556.html below:

[Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Modules threadmodule.c, 2.56, 2.56.8.1