Nick writes:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward-
> porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in the 2.x branch.
>
> After all, the renaming was approached for Python 3.0 and not
> 2.6 *because* it introduces major breakage.
>
> AFAIR, the discussion on the stdlib-sig also didn't include the
> plan to backport such changes to 2.6. Otherwise, we would have
> hashed them out there.
I think MAL is 100% correct here (and I expect Raymond will chime in to
support him at some point as well).
And until then, a +1 for MAL's position from me as well. 2.x should be
quite conservative about such changes...
I concur.
Raymond
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
