On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Gregory P. Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Eli Bendersky <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Does it really make sense to introduce large amounts of code churn after >> the release of 3.4 beta2? It started innocently enough, but now it seems >> that the whole implementation is being reconsidered (Antoine's email to >> pydev). This doesn't look like something we should be doing so late in the >> release process. >> > > I wouldn't call that a whole implementation being reconsidered. People are > just bike shedding over which wall to paint first. The color has already > been established. > Agreed. > > Besides, Larry is both the release manager for 3.4 and argument clinic > proponent. If we need a beta3 instead of an rc1 next, that is up to him. :) > Exactly. It also helps that this is not meant to change semantics (beyond better help() ATM) so unit tests + compiler checks should be enough to catch any major issues that Argument Clinic might cause. > > I'm not weighing in on the pydev thread despite having opinions because it > just doesn't matter to me in the end. I'd just be adding noise and am happy > to accept anything so long as argument clinic does stay in for 3.4. > > >> Are we really that much in need of convert-to-clinic *now*? >> > > It'll never happen otherwise. > I see no reason not to get it done now. I would honestly say we should push the release to see it finished so we don't end up with some C code converted and not others. Might as well get all extension code to have defined signatures than only some at this point. -Brett > > -gps > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > >
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
