In article <20121102153459.0107b250...@webabinitio.net>, "R. David Murray" <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote:
> 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. Also, as Roger Serwy has pointed out in the issue, the change also can affect third-party IDLE extensions but he thinks the backport is still worthwhile. Since the discussion has progressed primarily on the issue tracker and the python-dev interest is probably limited, I would suggest keeping the discussion over there rather than both here and there. -- Ned Deily, n...@acm.org _______________________________________________ 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
