On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/05/10 02:27, Terry Reedy wrote: >> >> I am suggesting that if we add a package, we do it right, from the >> beginning. > > This is a reasonable point of view, but I wouldn't want to hold up PEP 3148 > over it (call it a +0 for the idea in general, but a -1 for linking it to > the acceptance of PEP 3148). > > A separate short PEP proposing a migration plan that could be accepted or > rejected independently of PEP 3148 would likely be valuable. > > E.g. > - no change in 2.x (obviously) > - add concurrent.* alternate names in 3.x > - rearrange documentation in 3.x, with pointers from old names to new names > - put a PendingDeprecationWarning on the old names, but otherwise leave > them alone indefinitely > - add 2to3 fixers to translate from the old names to the new names in > import statements > > Cheers, > Nick.
Agreed; and intended as a different PEP. _______________________________________________ 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
