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

Reply via email to