On 15 Mar, 11:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
However, the decision was a bad one regardless of the existing policy,
and sets a bad precedent while we are discussing this policy. I could
be wrong, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that if Martin
strongly supports such a change, Martin would oppose a policy which
would strictly forbid such changes, and it is just such a policy that
Python needs.
I still can't guess what policy you have in mind, so I can't object to
it :-) I may accept a policy that rejects this change, but allows
another change to fix the problem. I would oppose a policy that causes
this bug to be unfixable forever.
Well, there's *also* the fact that I strongly disagree that this is a
bug, but I don't know that I could codify that in a policy. Hence the
parallel discussion.
However, I do apologize for obliquely referring to this thing I'm
working on without showing a work in progress. It's just that different
parts of the policy will rely on each other, and I don't want to get
bogged down talking about individual details which will be dealt with in
the final rev. That, and I am trying to integrate feedback from the
ongoing discussion...
_______________________________________________
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
