On 6/18/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
I agree with Martin. We can try to avoid the issue (and usually people should to make backporting fixes easier), but adding that hinderance can be a real pain, especially as we get farther and farther away from 2.3 .
> 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.
>
I think it is better to add a comment in the external release that it is backwards compatible somewhere, but leave it out of the core.
-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
