On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:16:12 -0500 Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: > On 2/11/2011 4:29 AM, Mark Shannon wrote: > > Nick Coghlan wrote: > > >> Now that the issue has been brought up, it can certainly be taken into > >> consideration for 3.3. The idea of defining a Py_PORTABLE_API that is > >> even more restrictive than PEP 384 (e.g. eliminating lots of old cruft > >> that is a legacy of CPython's long history of development when it was > >> the *only* viable Python implementation) may also be worth exploring. > > > > Absolutely. I intend to do just that. > > I think we should try to have deprecations and removals in the codebase > by the first alpha release for maximal testing. Why would we deprecate or remove anything? Are some functions useless? Reducing the number of API functions is not a goal in itself. Regards Antoine.
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