On 2014-03-10 17:08, R. David Murray wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:06:22 -0000, Brett Cannon <bcannon at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon Mar 10 2014 at 11:50:54 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > 2014-03-10 16:25 GMT+01:00 Stefan Richthofer <Stefan.Richthofer at gmx.de>: >> > > I don't see the point in this discussion. >> > > As far as I know, the major version is INTENDED to >> > > indicate backward-incompatible changes. >> > >> > This is not a strict rule. I would like to follow Linux 3 which didn't >> > break the API between Linux 2 and Linux 3. >> > >> >> I disagree. I don't think 3->4 will be as drastic as it was for 2->3, but I >> view Python 4 as a chance to drop all deprecated APIs that we left in for >> convenience in porting from Python 2 (e.g. the imp module). We can't put a >> removal date as we can't really declare Python 2 dead for the whole >> community. But when Python 4 does come out next decade I would like to say >> that we have moved entirely beyond Python 2 as a team and thus don't turn >> into Java and support deprecated code forever. > > We had this discussion a bit ago, and my sense was that we tentatively > decided that we were just going to deprecate and remove things as > appropriate, irregardless of version number. I used "4.0" in my > message about 'U' as a shorthand for "some time after python2 > is no longer an issue". Sorry for the confusion. (That said, I > do see some merit to doing some extra cleaning at the 4.0 > boundary, just for mental convenience.) > What does "irregardless" mean?
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