On 27/05/10 02:27, Terry Reedy wrote:
I am suggesting that if we add a package, we do it right, from the
beginning.
This is a reasonable point of view, but I wouldn't want to hold up PEP
3148 over it (call it a +0 for the idea in general, but a -1 for linking
it to the acceptance of PEP 3148).
A separate short PEP proposing a migration plan that could be accepted
or rejected independently of PEP 3148 would likely be valuable.
E.g.
- no change in 2.x (obviously)
- add concurrent.* alternate names in 3.x
- rearrange documentation in 3.x, with pointers from old names to new
names
- put a PendingDeprecationWarning on the old names, but otherwise
leave them alone indefinitely
- add 2to3 fixers to translate from the old names to the new names in
import statements
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
