On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 16:48 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Feb 28, 2012, at 03:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > >> If there is already a FAQ entry feel free to point me to it, but I would > >> still be curious why, in this instance, practicality does not beat purity? > > > >Because it's practical not to break bugfix releases with new features. > > And because now your code is incompatible with three micro-release versions > (3.2.0, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2), two of which are bug fix releases. Which means for > example, you can't be sure which version of which distro your code will work > on.
That I do sympathize with. > Doesn't anybody else remember the True/False debacle in 2.2.1? I do. It was slightly different than this because the feature was added twice, once in 2.2.1 with direct aliases to 0 and 1, which was found to be lacking, and then later again in 2.3 with explicit types, so it was sort of an extended-timeframe unpleasantness, and the feature's minor-dot-introduction was only a contributing factor, IIRC. But yeah. A year from now I wouldn't remember which version of 3.2 got a new feature, and neither would anybody else. The no-new-features guidelines are useful in the real world this way, because they represent a coherent policy, as tempting as it is to just jam it in. - C _______________________________________________ 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
