On 21 March 2012 22:43, Mark Hammond <skippy.hamm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22/03/2012 1:22 AM, Lindberg, Van wrote: >> >> Mark, MAL, Martin, Tarek, >> >> Could you comment on this? > > > Eric is correct - tools will be broken by this change. However, people seem > willing to push forward on this and accept such breakage as the necessary > cost. > > MAL, in his followup, asks what the advantages are of such a change. I've > actually been asking for the same thing in this thread and the only real > answer I've got is "consistency". So while I share MAL's concerns, people > seem willing to push forward on this anyway, without the benefits having > been explained. > > IOW, this isn't the decision I would make, but I think I've already made > that point a number of times in this thread. Beyond that, there doesn't > seem much for me to add...
I agree on all points here. I don't understand quite why backward compatibility is being treated so lightly here. But equally, I've made my points and have little further to add. One thought though - maybe this should need a PEP at least, to document the proposal and record the various arguments made in this thread? Paul. _______________________________________________ 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
