Thanks to Ed for writing the PEP, but the steering council decided to reject PEP 497. The website has not caught up to the rejection notice as I type this, but we rejected https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0497/ due to the `__past__` concept being too much work for what would be gained (we seem to be doing fine without it). As for the tighter request for providing backwards-compatibility, that can be subsumed into PEP 387.
I wrote PEP 606 "Python Compatibility Version" which tries to address a similar problem, but with a different approach: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0606/ It mentions PEP 497 by the way ;-) It has been discussed at: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/SETZ6U7... But I'm not sure of my own idea :-) The PEP doesn't support updating a project one file after the other. It's more a all-or-nothing global approach. Victor Le jeu. 7 nov. 2019 à 01:59, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> a écrit :
Thanks to Ed for writing the PEP, but the steering council decided to reject PEP 497. The website has not caught up to the rejection notice as I type this, but we rejected https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0497/ due to the `__past__` concept being too much work for what would be gained (we seem to be doing fine without it). As for the tighter request for providing backwards-compatibility, that can be subsumed into PEP 387. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/MRIRFTNH... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.
participants (2)
-
Brett Cannon -
Victor Stinner