On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Gregory P. Smith greg@krypto.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Eli Bendersky eliben@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Does it really make sense to introduce large amounts of code churn after the release of 3.4 beta2? It started innocently enough, but now it seems that the whole implementation is being reconsidered (Antoine's email to pydev). This doesn't look like something we should be doing so late in the release process.
I wouldn't call that a whole implementation being reconsidered. People are just bike shedding over which wall to paint first. The color has already been established.
Agreed.
Besides, Larry is both the release manager for 3.4 and argument clinic proponent. If we need a beta3 instead of an rc1 next, that is up to him. :)
Exactly. It also helps that this is not meant to change semantics (beyond better help() ATM) so unit tests + compiler checks should be enough to catch any major issues that Argument Clinic might cause.
I'm not weighing in on the pydev thread despite having opinions because it just doesn't matter to me in the end. I'd just be adding noise and am happy to accept anything so long as argument clinic does stay in for 3.4.
Are we really that much in need of convert-to-clinic *now*?
It'll never happen otherwise.
I see no reason not to get it done now. I would honestly say we should push the release to see it finished so we don't end up with some C code converted and not others. Might as well get all extension code to have defined signatures than only some at this point.
-Brett
-gps
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers