On Wed, Mar 09, 2005, Michael Hudson wrote: > > No no no! The point of what Anthony is saying, as I read it, is that > experience suggests it is exactly this sort of change that should be > avoided. Consider the case of Mac OS X 10.2 which came with Python > 2.2.0: this was pretty broken anyway because of some apple snafus but > it was made even more useless by the fact that people out in the wild > were writing code for 2.2.1 and using True/False/bool. Going from > 2.x.y to 2.x.y+1 shouldn't break anything, going from 2.x.y+1 to 2.x.y > shouldn't break anything that doesn't whack into a bug in 2.x.y -- and > "not having bool" isn't a bug in this sense.
Yes, exactly. That's why I wrote PEP 6 in the first place, and experience has only led to tightening things up further. The specific example of 2.2.1 and bool is even worse than you're noting, because 2.3's bool works a bit differently, so you have to actually code for three different problems in two major versions. Sehr schlecht. -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "The joy of coding Python should be in seeing short, concise, readable classes that express a lot of action in a small amount of clear code -- not in reams of trivial code that bores the reader to death." --GvR _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
