<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/21/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Collin Winter</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 3/20/07, Guido van Rossum <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:<br>[snip]<br>> Or we could just have 2.6 warn about the presence (or use) of __cmp__<br>> -- users can write equivalent code using __lt__ etc. themselves and
<br>> probably do a better job.<br><br>Fair enough.<br><br>Is anyone collecting a list of these --py3k warnings? There seem to be<br>a lot recent changes that 2.6's py3k-compat mode will be handling, but<br>I haven't seen anything about someone tracking them/working on a PEP
<br>on the issue. Or did I just volunteer myself for that? : )</blockquote><div><br>Neal and I have been updating PEP361, and I will be keeping an eye on it when I refactor the p3yk branch into separate py3k-feature-branches (be it bazaar or mercurial or whatever.) Each conceptual change in py3k will be a separate branch, so keeping track of what needs to be warned will be easier. (But the practical consequences of this will be clearer after I give it some concrete form :)
<br></div></div><br>-- <br>Thomas Wouters <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>><br><br>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!