On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/20/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Or we could just have 2.6 warn about the presence (or use) of __cmp__ > -- users can write equivalent code using __lt__ etc. themselves and > probably do a better job. Fair enough. Is anyone collecting a list of these --py3k warnings? There seem to be a lot recent changes that 2.6's py3k-compat mode will be handling, but I haven't seen anything about someone tracking them/working on a PEP on the issue. Or did I just volunteer myself for that? : )
Neal and I have been updating PEP361, and I will be keeping an eye on it when I refactor the p3yk branch into separate py3k-feature-branches (be it bazaar or mercurial or whatever.) Each conceptual change in py3k will be a separate branch, so keeping track of what needs to be warned will be easier. (But the practical consequences of this will be clearer after I give it some concrete form :) -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________ 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
