[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2014-01-27 Thread Moritz Neeb
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2012-09-23 Thread Ezio Melotti
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com: -- type: - enhancement ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue12296 ___ ___

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2012-01-11 Thread Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
Changes by Tshepang Lekhonkhobe tshep...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +tshepang ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue12296 ___ ___

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-10-24 Thread Ezio Melotti
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-10-21 Thread Éric Araujo
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?

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-10-21 Thread Terry J. Reedy
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-10-21 Thread Ezio Melotti
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.

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-10-19 Thread Ezio Melotti
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-10-18 Thread Jyrki Pulliainen
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-10-18 Thread Éric Araujo
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: I like it. Terry, objections? -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue12296 ___ ___

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-10-18 Thread Ezio Melotti
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-10-18 Thread Terry J. Reedy
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-06-27 Thread Éric Araujo
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-06-25 Thread Sandro Tosi
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-06-25 Thread Éric Araujo
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-06-25 Thread Terry J. Reedy
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:

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-06-24 Thread Éric Araujo
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-06-21 Thread Petri Lehtinen
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

[issue12296] Minor clarification in devguide

2011-06-09 Thread Éric Araujo
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: