"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes:
> 2013/8/1 Peter FELECAN <[email protected]>:
>>> I'm curious if anyone will object to my idea to drop the dependency on
>>> the interpreter.
>>
>> I'm rather opposed to it as it transgress the fundamental property of
>> explicit dependency declaration.
>
> I understand that your objection is principled rather than pragmatic, right?
I would say a principled pragmatism :-)
>> This can also create havoc, especially
>> if a 2.7 module is tried on a 2.6 only installation.
>
> I don't know, what exactly do you have in mind? Can you give a concrete
> example?
If one of the 2.7 modules has code using a set literal, e.g. {'0,'1'}
instead of set('0','1') it will fail in 2.6
If one of the 2.6 modules has code using a set literal,
e.g. set('0','1') instead of {'0,'1'} it will work in 2.7
This is what we call ascendant compatibility, isn't it?
--
Peter
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
