M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind
doing the renaming in the 2.x branch, but it appears that
the only reason is to get used to the new names. That's a
rather low priority argument in comparison to the breakage
the renaming will cause in the 2.x branch.
I think this is the key point here. The possibility of breaking pickling
compatibility never came up during the PEP 3108 discussions, so wasn't
taken into account in deciding whether or not backporting the name
changes was a good idea.
I think it's pretty clear that the code needs to be moved back into the
modules with the old names for 2.6. The only question is whether or not
we put any effort into making the new stdlib organisation usable in 2.x,
or just rely on 2to3 to fix it (note that the "increasing the common
subset" argument doesn't really apply, since you can catch the import
errors in order to try both names).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
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
