Ethan Furman writes: > On 08/11/2014 08:50 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > Chris Barker - NOAA Federal writes: > > > >> It seems pretty pedantic to say: we could make this work well, > >> but we'd rather chide you for not knowing the "proper" way to do > >> it. > > > > Nobody disagrees. But backward compatibility gets in the way. > > Something that currently doesn't work, starts to. How is that a > backward compatibility problem?
I'm referring to removing the unnecessary information that there's a better way to do it, and simply raising an error (as in Python 3.2, say) which is all a RealProgrammer[tm] should ever need! That would be a regression and backward incompatible. _______________________________________________ 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
