On Sep 28, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >*shrug* I just think the risks are higher than acknowledged (just >because you have so far failed to imagine a problem doesn't mean it >won't appear), and that the meta effect that "Even Guido admits that >Python 3 isn't ready for prime time" is perverse. We know, even those >who have written blanket statements to that effect in this thread, >that that is false unless conditioned on specific applications. > >I understand that the real motivation is that it's churlish to not >relieve the pain of users who have decided for their own good reasons >to use Python 2.7, and perverse to ignore the needs of the teachers >who are going to educate the users about Python 3 at the time they >consider appropriate. But the meta-message *received* by the public >is not going to accurately reflect that motivation, and is not going >to be helpful in encouraging those who already *can* move to Python 3 >to do so.
FWIW, +1 > >Anyway, clearly this exception is heading for approval, and the PEP >with it. I recommend that the "Feature addition in maintenance >releases" section be amended to read in its entirety: > > The additions of the new module to the standard library in the > maintenance releases of 2.7 and 3.3 were granted explicit > exceptions to the rule "no new features in maintenance releases." > These exceptions were explicitly discussed, and approved in > consultation with the affected release managers, separately from > the rest of the PEP. They do not represent a change in policy, > and must not be considered a precedent for other such exceptions. Call this the "Bush v. Gore" amendment. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
