On 15 Mar, 11:34 pm, martin at v.loewis.de wrote: >glyph at divmod.com schrieb: >>However, the decision was a bad one regardless of the existing policy, >>and sets a bad precedent while we are discussing this policy. I could >>be wrong, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that if Martin >>strongly supports such a change, Martin would oppose a policy which >>would strictly forbid such changes, and it is just such a policy that >>Python needs. > >I still can't guess what policy you have in mind, so I can't object to >it :-) I may accept a policy that rejects this change, but allows >another change to fix the problem. I would oppose a policy that causes >this bug to be unfixable forever. Well, there's *also* the fact that I strongly disagree that this is a bug, but I don't know that I could codify that in a policy. Hence the parallel discussion. However, I do apologize for obliquely referring to this thing I'm working on without showing a work in progress. It's just that different parts of the policy will rely on each other, and I don't want to get bogged down talking about individual details which will be dealt with in the final rev. That, and I am trying to integrate feedback from the ongoing discussion... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070316/22ef4090/attachment.htm
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