Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Gregory P. Smith <greg at krypto.org> wrote: > >> It is perfectly okay to break existing users who had anything depending on >> ordering of internal hash tables. Their code was already broken. We *will*provide a flag and/or environment variable that can be set to turn the >> feature off at their own peril which they can use in their test harnesses >> that are stupid enough to use doctests with order dependencies. > > > No, that is not how we usually take compatibility between bugfix releases. > "Your code is already broken" is not an argument to break forcefully what > worked (even if by happenstance) before. The difference between CPython and > Jython (or between different CPython feature releases) also isn't relevant > -- historically we have often bent over backwards to avoid changing > behavior that was technically undefined, if we believed it would affect a > significant fraction of users. > > I don't think anyone doubts that this will break lots of code (at least, > the arguments I've heard have been "their code is broken", not "nobody does > that"). I don't know about "lots" of code, but it will break at least one library (or so I'm told): http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-January/1286535.html -- Steven
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