On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:16:12 -0500 Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > On 2/11/2011 4:29 AM, Mark Shannon wrote: > > Nick Coghlan wrote: > > >> Now that the issue has been brought up, it can certainly be taken into > >> consideration for 3.3. The idea of defining a Py_PORTABLE_API that is > >> even more restrictive than PEP 384 (e.g. eliminating lots of old cruft > >> that is a legacy of CPython's long history of development when it was > >> the *only* viable Python implementation) may also be worth exploring. > > > > Absolutely. I intend to do just that. > > I think we should try to have deprecations and removals in the codebase > by the first alpha release for maximal testing.
Why would we deprecate or remove anything? Are some functions useless? Reducing the number of API functions is not a goal in itself. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
