Armin filed and argued for the addition in a PEP, a Python *Enhancement*
Proposal. He did not file a bugfix behavior issue on the tracker. Let us
leave it as that.
x.y is a specified language. We continuously improve the x.y docs that
describe and explain the specification. We also improve the
>> There is a really simple litmus test for whether something is a bug:
>> does it deviate from the specification?
>>
>> In this case, the specification is the grammar, and the implementation
>> certainly doesn't deviate from it. So it can't be a bug.
>
> I don't think anyone can assert that the s
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:06:21 -0500, Calvin Spealman
wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2012 7:14 PM, wrote:
> >>
> >> Why is readding u'' a feature and not a bug?
> >
> >
> > There is a really simple litmus test for whether something is a bug:
> > does it deviate from the specification?
> >
> > In this case, t
On Feb 28, 2012 7:14 PM, wrote:
>>
>> Why is readding u'' a feature and not a bug?
>
>
> There is a really simple litmus test for whether something is a bug:
> does it deviate from the specification?
>
> In this case, the specification is the grammar, and the implementation
> certainly doesn't dev
Le 29/02/2012 00:25, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> Also, I think there may be some confusion about Armin's plan to handle
> 3.2 - he aims to write an *import hook* that accepts the u/U prefixes
> during tokenisation, not a source-to-source transform like 2to3.
>
this needs to be emphasized. Read fro
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 21:27, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Here's what I know:
>
> We don't add features to bug-fix releases.
> u'' is considered a feature.
> By not backporting to 3.1 and 3.2 we are not easing the migration pains from
> 2.x.
If this is added to 3.2.3, then some programs will work with
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> Also, I think there may be some confusion about Armin's plan to handle
> 3.2 - he aims to write an *import hook* that accepts the u/U prefixes
> during tokenisation, not a source-to-source transform like 2to3. It's
I must confess, I thought it was a source-to-so
Why is readding u'' a feature and not a bug?
There is a really simple litmus test for whether something is a bug:
does it deviate from the specification?
In this case, the specification is the grammar, and the implementation
certainly doesn't deviate from it. So it can't be a bug.
Regards,
Mar
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> But yeah. A year from now I wouldn't remember which version of 3.2 got
> a new feature, and neither would anybody else. The no-new-features
> guidelines are useful in the real world this way, because they represent
> a coherent policy, as
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 16:48 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 03:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
> >> If there is already a FAQ entry feel free to point me to it, but I would
> >> still be curious why, in this instance, practicality does not beat purity?
> >
> >Because it's practi
On Feb 28, 2012, at 03:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> If there is already a FAQ entry feel free to point me to it, but I would
>> still be curious why, in this instance, practicality does not beat purity?
>
>Because it's practical not to break bugfix releases with new features.
And because no
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:23:40 -0500
Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 15:54 -0500, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> > 2012/2/28 Ethan Furman :
> > > Here's what I know:
> > >
> > > We don't add features to bug-fix releases.
> > > u'' is considered a feature.
> > > By not backporting to 3.1 a
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 15:54 -0500, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2012/2/28 Ethan Furman :
> > Here's what I know:
> >
> > We don't add features to bug-fix releases.
> > u'' is considered a feature.
> > By not backporting to 3.1 and 3.2 we are not easing the migration pains from
> > 2.x.
> >
> >
> > He
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 14:27, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Here's what I know:
>
> We don't add features to bug-fix releases.
> u'' is considered a feature.
> By not backporting to 3.1 and 3.2 we are not easing the migration pains from
> 2.x.
Let's say it's 2013 and 3.3 has been out for a few months an
2012/2/28 Ethan Furman :
> Here's what I know:
>
> We don't add features to bug-fix releases.
> u'' is considered a feature.
> By not backporting to 3.1 and 3.2 we are not easing the migration pains from
> 2.x.
>
>
> Here's what I don't know:
>
> Why is readding u'' a feature and not a bug? (Just
Here's what I know:
We don't add features to bug-fix releases.
u'' is considered a feature.
By not backporting to 3.1 and 3.2 we are not easing the migration pains
from 2.x.
Here's what I don't know:
Why is readding u'' a feature and not a bug? (Just had a thought about
this -- because the
16 matches
Mail list logo
