RetroSearch Browse

Thu May 27 02:03:23 CEST 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-May/100374.html

On 27/05/10 02:27, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I am suggesting that if we add a package, we do it right, from the
> beginning.

This is a reasonable point of view, but I wouldn't want to hold up PEP 
3148 over it (call it a +0 for the idea in general, but a -1 for linking 
it to the acceptance of PEP 3148).

A separate short PEP proposing a migration plan that could be accepted 
or rejected independently of PEP 3148 would likely be valuable.

E.g.
  - no change in 2.x (obviously)
  - add concurrent.* alternate names in 3.x
  - rearrange documentation in 3.x, with pointers from old names to new 
names
  - put a PendingDeprecationWarning on the old names, but otherwise 
leave them alone indefinitely
  - add 2to3 fixers to translate from the old names to the new names in 
import statements

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-May/100374.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement