"P.J. Eby" <p...@telecommunity.com> writes: > I'm saying that ignoring backwards compatibility (as MAL and Ben have > proposed) is bad incentive engineering.
I deny this characterisation. PEP 386, by declaring a distinction between version string comparisons that do or do not conform to a standard, is *necessarily* backward-incompatible: there will be version string comparison semantics currently in use that do not meet the standard. So if anything, it's PEP 386 that breaks backward compatibility. That's unavoidable, of course, and I can only trust that the proponents of PEP 386 have a means of dealing with those existing version comparisons that won't meet the standard. What I'm proposing is a modification to the specification; I'm not introducing backward incompatibility, since that's inherent in the standardisation effort. -- \ “The flattening of underwear with pleasure is the job of the | `\ chambermaid.” —hotel, Yugoslavia | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
