2011/2/11 Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>: > 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.
I think he's referring to deprecations and removals in general. -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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
