All your replies clarifies what your comment was intended to
mean, especially this one:
> I'd just like people who get their hands on the
> module to know that they can use it with 2.3.
When I first read the comment, I interpretted it too broadly
and took it as a requirement for compatibility. Bu
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> If you want to encourage people to use your module
> with older versions, the right path is to have a distribution (can be
> very light-weight) on your own website and add it to PyPI
Okay, i've removed the comment and submitted the package to PyPI.
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> # At the time of writing this module was compatible with Python 2.3 and
> later.
:-)
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.o
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> This sentiment is puzzling to me. It seems you assume that we can trust
> future developers to change the code but we can't trust them to update
> the documentation.
That's precisely my expectation. Suppose Python 3.0 unifies int and
long, and deprecates the L suffix. Then,
On 6/19/06, Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/18/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As for the comment: It apparently *is* misleading, George mistakenly
> > took it as a requirement for future changes, rather than a factual
> > statement about the present (even though
On 6/18/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for the comment: It apparently *is* misleading, George mistakenly
> took it as a requirement for future changes, rather than a factual
> statement about the present (even though it uses the tense of simple
> present). Anybody breaking 2
On 6/18/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:> > Anyway, it looks like someone has added this module to the list of
> > backward-compatible modules in PEP 291. Regarding whether we want> > it to be on that list (i.e. whether or not this backward-compatibility> > shou
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> Anyway, it looks like someone has added this module to the list of
> backward-compatible modules in PEP 291. Regarding whether we want
> it to be on that list (i.e. whether or not this backward-compatibility
> should be retained as Python moves forward), i'm happy to have it
>
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, George Yoshida wrote:
> uuid.py says in its docstring:
> This module works with Python 2.3 or higher.
>
> And my question is:
> Do we plan to make it 2.3 compatible in future releases?
>
> If so, uuid needs to be listed in PEP 291.
> Otherwise, the comment is misleading.
T
