To answer Nick's email here, I didn't respond to that initial email because it seemed specifically directed at Guido and not me.
On 10/5/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/5/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyway, the question is: What do we want to do with ast-branch? Finish > > bringing it up to Python 2.4 equivalence, make it the HEAD, and only then > > implement the approved PEP's (308, 342, 343) that affect the compiler? Or > > implement the approved PEP's on the HEAD, and move the goalposts for > > ast-branch to include those features as well? > > > > I believe the latter is the safe option in terms of making sure 2.5 is a > > solid > > release, but doing it that way suggests to me that the ast compiler would > > need > > to be held over until 2.6, which would be somewhat unfortunate. > > > > Given that I don't particularly like that answer, I'd love for someone to > > convince me I'm wrong ;) > > Given the total lack of response, I have a different suggestion. Let's > *abandon* the AST-branch. We're fooling ourselves believing that we > can ever switch to that branch, no matter how theoretically better it > is. > Since the original people who have done the majority of the work (Jeremy, Tim, Neal, Nick, logistix, and myself) have fallen so far behind this probably is not a bad decision. Obviously I would like to see the work pan out, but since I personally just have not found the time to shuttle the branch the rest of the way I really am in no position to say much in terms of objecting to its demise. Maybe I can come up with a new design and get my dissertation out of it. =) -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
