On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> wrote: > Le 07/07/2011 19:33, Terry Reedy a écrit : >> >> On 7/7/2011 7:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >>> The main point of the PEP, IMO, is actually the deprecation itself. By >>> deprecating, we signal that something isn't actively maintained >>> anymore, and that a (allegedly better) alternative is available. >>> I think that's a very reasonable thing to do, regardless of whether or >>> not the "thing" actually gets removed in a later version. >> >> Yes, the final decision could be deprecate now, remove in 4.0, as happened >> during the 2.x series. > > Python 4? Are you serious?
Py3k was a mythological "some time in the dim distant future" target for backwards incompatible changes for a long time before it became a real project that people were working on actually building. Py4k is now a similarly mythological beast :) However, like Brett, I don't think it's actually needed in this particular case. Deprecation in 3.3, removal in 3.5 is a time frame completely in line with the desire to avoid a repeat of the PyCObject/PyCapsule related incompatibility problems. 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
