RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 28 09:39:17 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-August/141381.html

On 28 August 2015 at 00:25, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd suggest including a clearer motivation there:
>
>     Note: The asyncio package has been included in the standard
> library on a provisional basis, and thus may gain new APIs and
> capabilities in maintenance releases as it matures. Backwards
> incompatible changes may occur if deemed absolutely necessary by the
> core developers.

I'm happy with a statement like this offering additional guidance, but
I think that formally we should stick with the current
provisional-or-not situation (with asyncio remaining provisional for
another release, if the asyncio devs feel that's needed). Ultimately,
end users only really have two choices - use a library or not - so
adding extra levels of "provisionalness" actually complicates their
choice rather than simplifying it.

Paul

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-August/141381.html below:

[Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio