ACCEPTED: PEP 285

[Aahz]

In article <Xns91E7CD754DB67JamesLLugojcom at 216.148.53.84>,
James Logajan  <JamesL at Lugoj.com> wrote:
>Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>>
>> You could have typed the code in to Python 2.2 and gotten
>> your answer. 
>
>Therein lies the problem: I typed it into Python 2.1 and naturally it 
>didn't work. I loaded 2.1 onto my laptop mid-year last year to be "up to 
>date" and I see that less than a year later my version is out of date. (By 
>comparison, my Linux machine still has 1.5.2 so I can do version checks.)

Python 2.1 (particularly 2.1.2) is a fine release.  There's no
compelling reason to upgrade unless you care about the type/class
unification.  But it's foolish at best to stick your nose into a thread
about language changes without finding what the current state of the
language is.

You seem to make a habit of irresponsible posts.  (Remember your actions
in the comp.distributed brouhaha?)

>Seriously Guido, how often will I need to check back to www.python.org to 
>keep up with the changes you are making? Do you have a schedule or some 
>constraints in place on how fast you are releasing major versions?

The current standard is approximately one release every six months.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"There are times when effort is important and necessary, but this should
not be taken as any kind of moral imperative."  --jdecker