Anthony Baxter wrote: > On Friday 08 September 2006 19:19, Steve Holden wrote: > >>But it *is* a desirable, albeit new, feature, so I'm surprised that you >>don't appear to perceive it as such for a downstream release. > > > Point releases (2.x.1 and suchlike) are absolutely not for new features. > They're for bugfixes, only. It's possible that this could be considered a > bugfix, but as I said right now I'm dubious. > OK, in that case I'm going to argue that the current behaviour is buggy.
I suppose your point is that, assuming the patch is correct (and it seems the authors are relying on it for production purposes in tens of thousands of installations), it doesn't change the behaviour of the interpreter in existing cases, and therefore it is providing a new feature. I don't regard this as the provision of a new feature but as the removal of an unnecessary restriction (which I would prefer to call a bug). If it was *documented* somewhere that Unicode paths aren't legal I would find your arguments more convincing. As things stand new Python users would, IMHO, be within their rights to assume that arbitrary directories could be added to the path without breakage. Ultimately, your call, I guess. Would it help if I added "inability to import from Unicode directories" as a bug? Or would you prefer to change the documentation to state that some directories can't be used as path elements <0.3 wink>? regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden _______________________________________________ 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
