On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end >> date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression >> that Python the language is moribund. It says, this is an exceptional >> pause, not a permanent halt. > > Proposal: > > No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...). > Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language > features provided they meet the usual standards for new features. > > 3.2 is a special case: as an even-numbered release, it would normally > allow new features, but in recognition of the special nature of the 2.x > to 3.1/3.2 migration, no new language features will be allowed. > > Advantages: > > * It slows down changes to the language while still allowing > sufficiently high-standard new features. > > * Alternate implementations have a stable language version to aim for. > Assuming point releases come ever 12-18 months, that stable language > version will last 2-3 years. > > * It doesn't have the psychological baggage of an unconditional ban on > new features for the indefinite future. It gives a fixed, known > schedule for when new features will be permitted, without the > uncertainty of "at the BDFL's pleasure". > > > -- > Steven D'Aprano FWIW, I view a definite end point as a definite plus. Geremy Condra
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