On 1/9/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/9/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/9/07, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Does the sets module serve any purpose other than backward > > > compatibility? Why not remove those module for py3k? > > > > Same reason that the User* modules still exist I suppose. Plus I > > don't know if PyPy or anyone else rely on it for their set/frozentset > > implementation. > > What's the concern with PyPy and IronPython? Don't they already have > copies of the sets module? >
It's not a worry of whether they have a copy in their current version, but whether we care to continue to be the official maintainers of the module if they use it. We could say they have to maintain it themselves and remove the module, but there might be duplicated work if they both use it. But I am fine with removing it. If no one speaks up to save it you can consider it gone for Py3K. -Brett _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
