<br><br>On 6/18/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <<a href="mailto:martin@v.loewis.de">martin@v.loewis.de</a>> wrote:<br>> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:<br>> > Anyway, it looks like someone has added this module to the list of
<br>> > backward-compatible modules in PEP 291. Regarding whether we want<br>> > it to be on that list (i.e. whether or not this backward-compatibility<br>> > should be retained as Python moves forward), i'm happy to have it
<br>> > either way.<br>> <br>> In that case, I think we shouldn't require 2.3 compatibility. There<br>> is no reason to deliberately break it either, of course.<br>> <br><br>I agree with Martin. We can try to avoid the issue (and usually people should to make backporting fixes easier), but adding that hinderance can be a real pain, especially as we get farther and farther away from
2.3 .<br><br>> As for the comment: It apparently *is* misleading, George mistakenly<br>> took it as a requirement for future changes, rather than a factual<br>> statement about the present (even though it uses the tense of simple
<br>> present). Anybody breaking 2.3 compatibility will have to remember<br>> to remove the comment, which he likely won't.<br>> <br><br><br>I think it is better to add a comment in the external release that it is backwards compatible somewhere, but leave it out of the core.
<br><br>-Brett<br>