[Python-Dev] PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium

[geremy condra]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra <debatem1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
>>>> date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
>>>> that Python the language is moribund. It says, this is an exceptional
>>>> pause, not a permanent halt.
>>>
>>> Proposal:
>>>
>>> No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
>>> Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
>>> features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.
>>>
>>> 3.2 is a special case: as an even-numbered release, it would normally
>>> allow new features, but in recognition of the special nature of the 2.x
>>> to 3.1/3.2 migration, no new language features will be allowed.
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>>
>>> * It slows down changes to the language while still allowing
>>> sufficiently high-standard new features.
>>>
>>> * Alternate implementations have a stable language version to aim for.
>>> Assuming point releases come ever 12-18 months, that stable language
>>> version will last 2-3 years.
>>>
>>> * It doesn't have the psychological baggage of an unconditional ban on
>>> new features for the indefinite future. It gives a fixed, known
>>> schedule for when new features will be permitted, without the
>>> uncertainty of "at the BDFL's pleasure".
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steven D'Aprano
>>
>>
>> FWIW, I view a definite end point as a definite plus.
>>
>> Geremy Condra
>>
>
> There is a time outlined in the pep.
>

I quote:

"This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1."

Emphasis mine.

Like I say, a definite end point would be much preferred to n > 2. If
possible, I'd also like to hear some of Steven's other points addressed.

Geremy Condra