RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 28 01:00:26 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-August/141378.html

Brett,

On 2015-08-27 6:46 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
[...]
> I say it's either fully provisional or it's not. I'm fine with 
> extending its provisional status another feature release as long as it 
> clearly states that in What's New for 3.5, but I don't think this 
> granularity guarantee of not breaking APIs while adding new features 
> is worth it. What if you want to add a new feature that is really hard 
> to do right without breaking compatibility? We all know how trying 
> that is. If you truly want to keep an accelerated development cycle, 
> then short of releasing new stdlib versions every 6 months separate 
> from the language then I say keep it provisional for 3.5. 

I'm fine with keeping it provisional in 3.5 (and Guido suggests this 
idea too in this thread).

A lot of companies (including big ones) are using asyncio already, 
despite the fact that it's provisional in 3.4.  I seriously doubt that 
keeping it provisional in 3.5 will do any harm.

asyncio documentation in 3.4.x has the following notes section:

     Note: The asyncio package has been included in the
     standard library on a provisional basis. Backwards
     incompatible changes (up to and including removal
     of the module) may occur if deemed necessary by the
     core developers.

I suggest to add a slightly less strong-worded note to 3.5 documentation:

     Note: The asyncio package has been included in the
     standard library on a provisional basis. Backwards
     incompatible changes may occur if deemed absolutely
     necessary by the core developers.

Yury

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-August/141378.html below:

[Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio