RetroSearch Browse

Thu May 4 17:11:33 EDT 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-May/147865.html

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> On 5/4/2017 10:43 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
>>> Enhancing public APIs in normal (non-provisional) modules in bugfix
>>> releases
>>> has turned out to be a bad thing to do.  Hence the policy to not do that.
>>> The few exceptions have been necessary to fix a bug that needed to be
>>> fixed,
>>> and could not reasonably be fixed otherwise.
>>
>> Such exceptions can of course more easily be made when the adoption of
>> a version is still small, and almost all users will never see X.Y.0 or
>> X.Y.1.
>
> This is not an allowed excuse for breaking the policy.  The x.y language is
> defined when x.y.0 is released.  Please stop.
>

Don't worry, I didn't even start :)

I do think it can cause problems if most of a stdlib module supports
PathLike and some parts do not. People will write code in 3.7
believing it works on 3.6, while it doesn't. Anyway, I'm completely
happy if the policy outweighs this issue, and I have absolutely no
need to argue about the decision.

—Koos

-- 
+ Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-May/147865.html below:

[Python-Dev] Is adding support for os.PathLike an enhancement or bugfix?