
Aug. 12, 2014
6:07 a.m.
Ethan Furman writes:
On 08/11/2014 08:50 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Chris Barker - NOAA Federal writes:
It seems pretty pedantic to say: we could make this work well, but we'd rather chide you for not knowing the "proper" way to do it.
Nobody disagrees. But backward compatibility gets in the way.
Something that currently doesn't work, starts to. How is that a backward compatibility problem?
I'm referring to removing the unnecessary information that there's a better way to do it, and simply raising an error (as in Python 3.2, say) which is all a RealProgrammer[tm] should ever need! That would be a regression and backward incompatible.