M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Backwards compatibility is a *big* problem
for any major refactoring though.
Sigh.
*sigh*
Don't you just love emails that start with a sigh. Anyway, yes. That is
why I said it was a problem. Good grief.
Michael
I sometimes get the feeling that people on this list don't
know Python's history, how it was developed over the past decade
and what our goals were.
Maintaining as much backwards compatibility as reasonably possible
has always been a key goal and we've done a pretty good job at
it (if I may say so).
As Py3k approached, it was deemed ok to break with the past and
that was accepted by the core developers and the users. However,
that time has past now and we're running in non-breaking mode
again.
As we're starting to establish the Py3k branch as new stable
Python branch, we're not suddenly going to change the goals
we've established over the years in the Python 2.x branch.
Backwards compatibility is one of the key arguments for using
Python as a development platform. As such it's not a problem,
it's a feature of Python.
And while it may not mean much to developers who prefer to run
bleeding edge code, it does mean a lot to the established
Python user base.
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
_______________________________________________
stdlib-sig mailing list
stdlib-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
