RetroSearch Browse

Wed Sep 26 18:37:17 CEST 2007 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-September/074735.html

On 9/26/07, skip at pobox.com <skip at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>     Guido> I fully support removing all historic references from the 3.0
>     Guido> language manual.
>
> By historic I assume you mean references to 2.x modules, classes, functions,
> etc which are no longer present.  One thing I would suggest is that the more
> recent versionadded strings be kept.  At the very least, if something is
> going to be new in 2.6, keep that.  Maybe also keep the 2.5 versionadded
> references.  Older references can probably be deleted.

In the 2.x docs, all versionadded strings should stay. But IMO in the
3.0 docs we should get rid of them all. If you want compatibility
information, look at the 2.6 docs (those should also mention things
that are changing in 3.0).

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-September/074735.html below:

[Python-Dev] Python 3.0a documentation