On 2/11/2011 1:35 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
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.
My next sentence [snipped] was "GP's asyncore changes inspired this
thought, but I would apply it generally."
Why would we deprecate or remove anything? Are some functions useless?
Shannon thinks so. I am specifically suggesting that he make any removal
suggestion well before the alpha release.
I think he's referring to deprecations and removals in general.
Yes, as I said. I am also thinking about 3.2 deprecations that will
become 3.3 removals. That includes one that I am responsible for.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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
