On 2005 Feb 05, at 16:49, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:31:26 -0500, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[Anthony]
While this is undoubtedly a bug fix, I'm not sure that it should be
backported - it will break people's code that is "working" now
(albeit
in a faulty way). Wha
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:31:26 -0500, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Anthony]
> > While this is undoubtedly a bug fix, I'm not sure that it should be
> > backported - it will break people's code that is "working" now (albeit
> > in a faulty way). What do people think?
>
> I concur --
[Anthony]
> While this is undoubtedly a bug fix, I'm not sure that it should be
> backported - it will break people's code that is "working" now (albeit
> in a faulty way). What do people think?
I concur -- the balance of risks is towards the patch causing more harm
than good.
Raymond
_
On Saturday 05 February 2005 05:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fix bug that allowed future statements virtually anywhere in a module.
>
> If we exit via the break here, we need to set ff_last_lineno or
> FUTURE_POSSIBLE() will remain true. The bug affected statements
> containing a variety of expr
