On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 18:59, Anderson Lizardo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Robert Kern <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 08:45, Matti Airas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> With all of this in mind, I believe it would be now a perfect time to begin >>> planning any backwards-incompatible changes to PySide, as the Python 3 >>> transition would be the perfect instant to incorporate them. So, start >>> discussing those PSEP ideas! ;-) >> >> The Python team *very* much discourages libraries from using the >> Python 3 transition in order to introduce backwards-incompatible >> changes. If all of our libraries also change out from under us, it >> makes transitioning to Python 3 too difficult. It will already be >> fairly challenging to port from PyQt to PySide and Python 2 to Python >> 3 separately. Please do not make it more difficult. > > PySide was not intended mimic PyQt API. In fact, we intended to bring > some pythonic behavior even during initial development, but this would > just complicate things (mainly on the generator side) and delay the > initial public release even more than necessary. We decided to release > this initial, non pythonic version, and discuss with community > (through the PSEP process) what are the best pythonic behavior for the > new API. From now on, most relevant API changes will have community > participation (at least we hope and encourage it!), and the PSEPs are > a start. > > Maybe it is not clear for everyone, but we see Python's own > development model as a very effective one. AFAIK Python developers > (and the community around it) do not see API breakness between 2.x and > 3.x as a bad thing, but the opportunity to evolve into a modern > language without the legacy barriers. There is a price for it: they > need to maintain separate branches for a long time too, but OTOH the > language evolves with the time.
But the Python developers, very specifically, have asked that libraries do not use the Python 3 transition as an opportunity to make their own incompatible changes. The community does view API breakage of *libraries* between 2.x and 3.x as a bad thing. That's quite different from their view of the API breakage of just Python itself. Make all of the API changes you want. Ignoring the PyQt connection, you are still a young project and have room for it, especially if you follow a deliberative PSEP procedure. Just don't tie these API changes to the Python version. > For PySide we also want a modern API, that evolves just like Python. > Many (most?) community feedback on various channels see this as a good > thing, specially if you look from the Python side and not from the > C++/ABI/legacy barriers. I am happy to see PySide with a new and better API even if it means that I have more work to do when porting from PyQt. This API should work for both Python 2.x and 3.x. If it's that much better, I will want it for my Python 2.x apps, too. Making the new API supported only under Python 3.x does not make things easier for anyone, least of all the PySide developers. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
