RetroSearch Browse

Tue Mar 15 23:56:57 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109328.html

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Lennart Regebro <regebro at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 15:39, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
>> Of course you could have. You could have added a version of your code
>> that uses capsules (just as you are probably doing now).
>
> No I'm not.

The numpy folks have shown it is quite possible to support 3.2 without
sacrificing compatibility with earlier versions.

>> Right - and that's why the deprecation period is not about supporting
>> multiple versions, but to reduce the need for people to adjust their
>> code on a quick notice.
>
> I think we need to adjust PEP 5 then. We can't keep on breaking
> backwards compatibility like this. People are already freaked out
> about Python 2 to Python 3, and the argument is often used against
> Python that it's not a language to be used in enterprise situations
> because Python keeps on breaking backwards compatibility. Up until 3.2
> that statement was not actually true. Python 2.x was very backwards
> compatible. The next time somebody tells me that Python isn't stable
> and breaks backwards compatibility all the time, and says that's why
> you should use Java, what can I now say? OK, it's just the C-API, but
> that excuse isn't going to fly...

But given that this situation was unique to the parallel development
of 2.x and 3.x, and PEP 5 was applied correctly within each of the
parallel lines of development, why not just consider this another
instance of the 2.x/3.x incompatibility? That's what it is after all.

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/2011-March/109328.html below:

[Python-Dev] public visibility of python-dev decisions "before it's too late"