On 3/14/07, Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 06:47 PM 3/14/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > >> Phillip J. Eby schrieb: >> >>> This backwards-incompatible change is therefore contrary to policy and >>> should be reverted, pending a proper transition plan for the change >>> (such as introduction of an alternative API and deprecation of the >>> existing one.) >>> >> I'm clearly opposed to this proposal, or else I wouldn't have committed >> the change in the first place. >> > > That much is obvious. But I haven't seen any explanation as to why > explicitly-documented and explicitly-tested behavior should be treated as a > bug in policy terms, just because people don't like the documented and > tested behavior. > > Because it's clearly a bug and has even been shown to fix bugs in current code ? Honestly it is this sort of pointless prevarication that gives python-dev a bad name.
However, changing documented, tested behaviour without warning gives Python an even worse name. I agree with PJE that the change is the wrong thing to do, simply because it sets (yet another) precedent. If providing an alternate API with clearer semantics is too 'heavy-weight' a solution and warning is for some reason unacceptable (I don't see why; all the arguments against warning there go for *any* warning in Python) -- then the problem isn't bad enough to fix it by breaking other code. -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
