[Python-Dev] Unclear on the way forward with unsigned integers

[Thomas Wouters]

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:45:53AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:

> You seem to want most of all to avoid warning msgs, but __future__ options
> don't accomplish that:  it's the *point* of __future__ thingies to spit out
> warnings about semantics that are going to change.

> I don't know that it's a useful point, though.  That is, the only comments
> I've seen about __future__ from users in practice is from those who are
> annoyed by needing to say "__future__" all over the place to get at the new
> features they want right away.  Alas, I haven't seen evidence that it eases
> migration.  That could be because it works so well people don't feel a need
> to comment about it, but somehow that seems a tad unlikely <wink>.

Well, I can tell you that __future__ has definately worked. Without it, I
would not have been able to upgrade Python on many of our servers -- and
because we don't need newer versions ourselves, they would not likely be
installed at all. As it is, I can safely upgrade to the next major version
when they come out, instead of having to start a lengthy and very
energy-consuming customer-acceptance process. And this anal attitude towards
compatibility isn't just me, it's company policy ;)

I suspect all companies that maintain python on behalf of third parties
are grateful of future. Or at least, the good ones, the others merely
_should_ be grateful :)

-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!