On 17 Feb 2014, at 00:43, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17 Feb 2014 08:36, "Greg Ewing" <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > > > Larry Hastings wrote: > > > >> 3) We hold off on merging the rest of the Derby patches until after 3.4.0 > >> final ships, then we merge them into the 3.4 maintenance branch so they go > >> into 3.4.1. > > > > > > But wouldn't that be introducing a new feature into a > > maintenance release? (I.e. some functions that didn't > > have introspectable signatures before would gain them.) > > From a compatibility point of view, 3.4.0 will already force introspection > users and tool developers to cope with the fact that some, but not all, > builtin and extension types provide valid signature data. Additional clinic > conversions that don't alter semantics then just move additional callables > into the "supports programmatic introspection" category. > > It's certainly in a grey area, but "What's in the best interest of end > users?" pushes me in the direction of counting clinic conversions that don't > change semantics as bug fixes - they get improved introspection support > sooner, and it shouldn't make life any harder for tool developers because all > of the adjustments for 3.4 will be to the associated functional changes in > the inspect module. > > The key thing is to make sure to postpone any changes that impact *semantics* > (like adding keyword argument support).
But there is a semantic change: some functions without a signature in 3.4.0 would have a signature in 3.4.1. That’s unlikely to affect user code much because AFAIK signatures aren’t used a lot yet, but it is a semantic change non the less :-) Ronald _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
