On 11/5/06, Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As an aside to the discussion about "nonlocal", here are a couple ofthoughts on backward compatibility.For some of the proposed keywords, here's the number of occurrencesof the keyword in the current standard library (not including comments
and doc
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> nonlocal 0 0
> use 2 2
> using 3 3
> reuse 0 4
> free 8 8
> outer 5 147
> global 126 214
Oops, i forgot to explain: the first column is th
As an aside to the discussion about "nonlocal", here are a couple of
thoughts on backward compatibility.
For some of the proposed keywords, here's the number of occurrences
of the keyword in the current standard library (not including comments
and docstrings):
nonlocal 0 0
use
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:02 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I don't think things are going to be broken gratuitously.
However, I hope we don't throw out clearly beneficial improvements for
backward compatibility's sake. But yes, all things being equal, if it
comes down to a tie-breaker then backwar
On 3/23/06, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >>I saw this too in the archives, and thought shit, that's going to mess
> >>up a lot of my code. I would assume (though it's a separate point of
> >>discussion) that Python 3k should still try hard to keep backward
> >
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>I saw this too in the archives, and thought shit, that's going to mess
>>up a lot of my code. I would assume (though it's a separate point of
>>discussion) that Python 3k should still try hard to keep backward
>>compatibility. Backward compatibility isn't a requirement,
