> As a final note, on backwards compatibility - that was amusing. The > two sides were trying to define two things with one definition. Let me > try with two definitions: > > A module is backwards compatible if code that used the documented APIs > of the previous version of the module will work unchanged with the > current version. > > A specification is backwards compatible if it is possible for an > implementation of the current version to be backwards compatible with > an implementation of the previous version. > > I think both of these are desirable properties.
Thanks, I was wondering why I was having trouble getting my head around the whole thing. I think I will give up my crusade to eradicate the 'extra' formats. I am not completely convinced it isn't a good idea, but I haven't been able to put together an example of how it would work, and maybe it won't be so bad after all. Carl K _______________________________________________ DB-SIG maillist - DB-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/db-sig
