Moritz Neeb added the comment:
Tried to summarize the previous discussion and generate a compromise here.
Patch attached.
--
nosy: +zormit
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file33757/devguide-patch.diff
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
type: - enhancement
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue12296
___
___
Changes by Tshepang Lekhonkhobe tshep...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +tshepang
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue12296
___
___
Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com added the comment:
PEP 387 explains the rules about backward compatibility. The paragraph could
just link to that.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue12296
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
This is the wording I committed:
(This obviously does not apply to new classes or functions; new arguments
should be optional and have default values which maintain the existing
behavior.)
Should I push or should I delete the changeset?
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
Ezio's comment got me to reread the entire paragraph. I do not like it. 'Having
you think' is wrong; 'Basically just' is unneeded; 'guaranteed' is hyperbole;
and the paragraph is otherwise repetitive, vague, and pretty useless. For most
Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com added the comment:
That's a bit heavy in my opinion. I don't think it's necessary to define in
detail what backward-compatibile means, it's probably enough to say that
whatever code might be running before the patch should keep running fine even
after.
Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com added the comment:
I don't think we need to mention that. Actually the tone of the whole
paragraph could be relaxed a bit, because it first says that any change
**will** break code (which is not true), except new semantic, obviously
(which is not true
Jyrki Pulliainen jy...@dywypi.org added the comment:
Updated the existing patch with the new wording
--
nosy: +Jyrki.Pulliainen
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file23437/clarify-bwcompat-devguide_v2.diff
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
I like it. Terry, objections?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue12296
___
___
Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com added the comment:
LGTM.
(Actually you can still break someone's code by introducing new
functions/classes, in case they get imported with 'from mod import *' and
override some local function/class with the same name -- but this is such an
obscure case
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
To be more exact, optional arguments should be more extended to optional
arguments whose default maintains the existing behavior
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
Okay for a new sentence. I think repeating new is clearer:
(This obviously does not apply to new classes or functions, or new optional
arguments.)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Sandro Tosi sandro.t...@gmail.com added the comment:
(this obviously does not apply to new classes, functions or *optional*
arguments) ?
--
nosy: +sandro.tosi
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue12296
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
Good idea. So, any -1 on this:
(this obviously does not apply to new classes or functions, or new optional
arguments)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue12296
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
The parenthetical comment is a complete sentence, and no longer trivial. I
would separate it and write it more simply as
... their code. (This obviously does not apply to new classes, functions, or
optional arguments.)
--
nosy:
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
What about this: (this obviously does not apply to new classes, functions or
arguments)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue12296
Petri Lehtinen pe...@digip.org added the comment:
New semantics may also be something else than new classes or functions. New
optional function arguments exposing new functionality, for example.
--
nosy: +petri.lehtinen
___
Python tracker
New submission from Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org:
I found the wording of one line of the devguide strange and changed it IMO for
the better. Please review.
--
assignee: eric.araujo
components: Devguide
files: clarify-bwcompat-devguide.diff
keywords: needs review, patch
messages:
19 matches
Mail list logo