Ka-Ping Yee wrote: > Anyway, it looks like someone has added this module to the list of > backward-compatible modules in PEP 291. Regarding whether we want > it to be on that list (i.e. whether or not this backward-compatibility > should be retained as Python moves forward), i'm happy to have it > either way.
In that case, I think we shouldn't require 2.3 compatibility. There is no reason to deliberately break it either, of course. As for the comment: It apparently *is* misleading, George mistakenly took it as a requirement for future changes, rather than a factual statement about the present (even though it uses the tense of simple present). Anybody breaking 2.3 compatibility will have to remember to remove the comment, which he likely won't. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
