On 10/5/05, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > Anyway, the question is: What do we want to do with ast-branch? Finish > bringing it up to Python 2.4 equivalence, make it the HEAD, and only then > implement the approved PEP's (308, 342, 343) that affect the compiler? Or > implement the approved PEP's on the HEAD, and move the goalposts for > ast-branch to include those features as well? > > I believe the latter is the safe option in terms of making sure 2.5 is a solid > release, but doing it that way suggests to me that the ast compiler would need > to be held over until 2.6, which would be somewhat unfortunate. > > Given that I don't particularly like that answer, I'd love for someone to > convince me I'm wrong ;) Given the total lack of response, I have a different suggestion. Let's *abandon* the AST-branch. We're fooling ourselves believing that we can ever switch to that branch, no matter how theoretically better it is. -- --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