Georg Brandl <ge...@python.org> added the comment: "Bugs are not fixed" is somewhat misleading -- I assume you're referring to bugs like the one I closed recently. Those are all bugs that have been in the compiler package for ages, and users that hit them know them or work around them. If a regression comes up, it should be fixed IMO.
The only way to make the compiler users happy would be to add it back, fully supported, to Python3 :) If you want to understand my reasoning: I want to avoid a situation like a few months ago, when Python 2.6 was released -- people claimed e.g. the latest Mercurial release at that time wasn't compatible with 2.6 because it emitted quite a few DeprecationWarnings. This statement is not true, of course, but this is how users see it. In that case, it was easy for Mercurial to "fix" because all the deprecated features could be replaced without effort. For libraries/programs that use the compiler package, this won't be effortless and many maintainers may not be able to spend the time and effort to "fix" that. Also, if you look at other modules removed in Py3k, like "new" or "rfc822", they all only raise a Py3k deprecation warning. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6837> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
