En Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:09:05 -0300, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> On Apr 16, 11:15 am, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 16 abr, 09:56, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > In my opinion python's adherence to backwards compatibility >> > has been a bit mythological anyway -- many new python versions >> > have broken my old code for no good reason. This is an irritant >> > when you have thousands of users out there who suddenly drop >> > your code, blame you and python, and move on to use something else. > Yes I mean it. Actually I was unaware > of/forgot reconvert, but it doesn't > matter because it doesn't solve the problem of code I wrote that > has long ago escaped into the wild no longer working. There are > other examples too, having to do with things as simple as a name > change in a standard module that broke old > code of mine for what I regard as silly cosmetic reasons. Yes, there was some cases like that in the past, but I think that now there is a strict policy for backwards compatibility, including at least one .n release with deprecation warnings before removing old things. Anyway, sometimes incompatible changes appear in the standard library - perhaps because less developers are looking at them in detail? > I hope you are right about py3k conversions being pain > free and routine. I'm suspicious about it however. Well, I would not say "pain free", but certainly it's not as terrible as some people imply... -- Gabriel Genellina -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list