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

Reply via email to