> Specifically, however, I would prefer to see it without the warning and > future change, as I don't think it provides any real benefit. Either > way, some people will have to use a keyword to get what they want, so > making a change seems unnecessary. > > However, if we have to change something in a future version, I would > suggest we make that option a required argument, on EIBTI grounds. That > way, in 2.6 you can simply make it explicit to be 3.x-compatible. And, > I think the warning (if any) should be treated as any other 3.x warning. > > But as I said, I gather that this aspect of the question is the main > open issue remaining to be resolved, since you've also expressed support > for the keyword approach, as have many others.
So will you also either pick one of the proposals, or come up with your own patch? I still think that some has to make a decision, and it won't be me. 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
