Ethan Furman writes: > On 08/11/2014 08:50 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > Chris Barker - NOAA Federal writes: > > > >> It seems pretty pedantic to say: we could make this work well, > >> but we'd rather chide you for not knowing the "proper" way to do > >> it. > > > > Nobody disagrees. But backward compatibility gets in the way. > > Something that currently doesn't work, starts to. How is that a > backward compatibility problem? I'm referring to removing the unnecessary information that there's a better way to do it, and simply raising an error (as in Python 3.2, say) which is all a RealProgrammer[tm] should ever need! That would be a regression and backward incompatible.
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