Fair enough.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:45 AM Thomas Wouters <tho...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 8:38 AM Steve Holden <st...@holdenweb.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 8:08 PM Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> >> All I will say is just because we aren't *required* to implement it in >> __future__ that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't. Everything should be >> done to underline the tentative nature of these developments, or we risk >> the potential of functionality frozen because "we're already using it in >> production." >> > > On the other hand, __future__ imports have never been provisional, and it > was never the *intent *of __future__ imports to be provisional. PEP 236, > which introduced __future__ imports after a vigorous debate on backward > compatibility, explicitly states "fully backward- compatible additions > can-- and should --be introduced without a corresponding future_statement". > I think it would be very surprising if a feature introduced under a future > import turned out to go away rather than become the default. > > -- > Thomas Wouters <tho...@python.org> > > Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me > spread! >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/OD7YGKBLJFFMXYFMYWQZIX7UPHZG5ZR3/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
