On 2/11/2011 1:35 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2011/2/11 Antoine Pitrou<solipsis at pitrou.net>: >> 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. My next sentence [snipped] was "GP's asyncore changes inspired this thought, but I would apply it generally." >> Why would we deprecate or remove anything? Are some functions useless? Shannon thinks so. I am specifically suggesting that he make any removal suggestion well before the alpha release. > I think he's referring to deprecations and removals in general. Yes, as I said. I am also thinking about 3.2 deprecations that will become 3.3 removals. That includes one that I am responsible for. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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