On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> On 05/08/2016 03:29 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > If enum were provisional it would be okay, but since it isn't, I think >> this change can't go into 3.5.2. Think if this: could any code that >> works in 3.5.1 be broken by the change? >> > > No, but with the change code that works in 3.5.2 could break in 3.5.1 or > 3.5.0. > That's bad too (and it's one reason why we're generally strict about the "no new features in bugfix releases" rule. > It's a 2/3 compatibility issue with enum34 and aenum which support > _order_, and Python3.4+ which does not. The work-around is to use > __order__ instead (or use enum34 or aenum instead ;) . > > Either way, it's only similarity to a bug is I should have named it > _order_ in the beginning, and put the compatibility shim into the stdlib > version at the same time. > I think it's a case of water under the bridge and learning to live with your mistakes. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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
