On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> Please don't do this. We need stable APIs. Trying to switch the entire >> community to use CapWord APIs for something as commonly used as >> datetime sounds like wasting a lot of cycles with no reason except the >> mythical "PEP 8 conformance". As I said, it's a pity we didn't change >> this at the 3.0 point, but I think going forward we should try to be >> more committed to slow change. Additions of new functionality are of >> course fine. But renamings (even if the old names remain available) >> are just noise. > > Even for 3.0, the only API I can recall doing this for was the threading > module, and there we had the additional motivation of being able to add > multiprocessing with only a PEP 8 compliant API while still having it be > close to a drop-in replacement for the corresponding threading API. > > Having helped with that kind of rename once (and for a relatively small > API at that), I'd want a *really* compelling reason before ever going > through it again - it's messy, tedious and a really good way to burn > volunteer time without a great deal to show for it at the end.
My first response was "in hindsight we shouldn't have done this." But we moved a bunch of other modules around too (urllib, http, db, I forget what else) and I think those worked out well. Why was threading particularly unpleasant? (An no, this isn't a rhetorical question or a retort. I'm just curious -- I have the same feeling but can't pin it down.) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
