On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 01:16:12 +1000, Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Andrew Svetlov email@example.com wrote:
Hi. There are issue for subject: http://bugs.python.org/issue1207589
The status quo is that IDLE is covered by the "no new features in maintenance releases" rule along with the rest of the standard library. Now, it may be *unreasonable* that this is so, and changing it would help improve IDLE as a tool. The way to resolve a proposal like that is to put it forward as a PEP, and explain the rationale for treating IDLE differently. A PEP also makes it possible to state exactly which modules are being proposed for exemption from the no-new-features rule.
In this particular instance we are not looking to exempt the entire module, just this changeset (because it does not change callable code).
Exempting IDLE in general is an interesting idea, but is not the immediate question.
Also, as Roger Serwy has pointed out in the issue, the change also can affect third-party IDLE extensions but he thinks the backport is still worthwhile. Since the discussion has progressed primarily on the issue tracker and the python-dev interest is probably limited, I would suggest keeping the discussion over there rather than both here and there.