Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I don't think a change like this should go into a 2.4.x release. It > > stands a very very high chance of breaking someone's code. I _could_ > > be convinced about a warning being emitted about it, though I'm not > > going to have the time to figure out the new compiler to do the work. > > In fact I know for sure it will break code -- I believe I first ran > into this with Django. Cheetah ? http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=146606 > Let's leave 2.4 alone (even adding a warning to 2.4.3 seems pointless) > except for documenting this (not just in Misc/NEWS which is > overwhelming but in the 2.4 docs for _future-_). In 2.5 it's already > fixed; perhaps the 2.5 docs could mention that this was accidentally > broken in 2.4. agreed. </F>
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