On Jan 4, 2008 12:18 PM, Guido van Rossum <<a href="mailto:guido@python.org">guido@python.org</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In the past some folks have been pushing for the resurrection of (some<br>form of) __cmp__, which is currently removed from Py3k (except for<br>some remnants which we'll clean up in due time).<br><br>I'd like to get closure on this issue. If someone volunteers within a
<br>week to write a PEP, I'll give them a month to write the PEP, and then<br>I'll review it. The PEP better come with a patch implementing<br>(roughly) the desired behavior as well, relative to the 3.0 branch.<br>
<br>If I don't hear from a committed volunteer within a week, I'll drop<br>this and start removing __cmp__ references aggressively (starting with<br>issue #1717). Saying "if no-one else volunteers, I can give it a shot"
<br>is not sufficient commitment. Saying "I will give it a shot" is. If<br>someone commits but no PEP+patch is in my possession by February 4<br>(and no attenuating circumstances have been brought to my attention),
<br>I will assume the PEP won't happen and will start removing __cmp__<br>references. Once a PEP and patch are presented, I'll review them and<br>make a decision.</blockquote><div><br>I can't speak for the others, but I know I've decided not to pursue it.
</div></div><br>-- <br>Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus