On 11/1/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:14 AM 11/1/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >I guess this ought to be recorded. :-( > > > >The issue has been beaten to death and my position remains firm: > >rather than playing namespace games, consistent renaming is the right > >thing to do here. This becomes a trivial source edit, > > Well, it's not trivial if you're (in my case) trying to support 2.3 and 2.4 > with the same code base.
You should just bite the bullet and make a privatized copy of the package(s) on which you depend part of your own distributions. > It'd be nice to have some other advice to offer people besides, "go edit > your code". Of course, if the feature hadn't already existed, I suppose a > PEP to add it would have been shot down, so it's a reasonable decision. I agree it would be nice if we could do something about deep version issues. But it's hard, and using the absolute/relative ambiguity isn't a solution but a nasty hack. I don't have a solution either except copying code (which IMO is a *fine* solution in most cases as long as copyright issues don't prevent you). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
