On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 01:16:12 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Andrew Svetlov > <andrew.svet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi. There are issue for subject: http://bugs.python.org/issue1207589 [...] > The status quo is that IDLE is covered by the "no new features in > maintenance releases" rule along with the rest of the standard > library. Now, it may be *unreasonable* that this is so, and changing > it would help improve IDLE as a tool. The way to resolve a proposal > like that is to put it forward as a PEP, and explain the rationale for > treating IDLE differently. A PEP also makes it possible to state > exactly which modules are being proposed for exemption from the > no-new-features rule.
In this particular instance we are not looking to exempt the entire module, just this changeset (because it does not change callable code). Exempting IDLE in general is an interesting idea, but is not the immediate question. --David _______________________________________________ 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
