On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra <debatem1 at gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > There is a time outlined in the pep.
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