ACCEPTED: PEP 285

[Christian Tanzer]

Paul Rubin <phr-n2002a at nightsong.com> wrote:

> Tim Peters <tim.one at comcast.net> writes:
> > > Doesn't matter what you call it, if a 2.1 script can't run at all or as
> > > expected on 2.0, that is a major change in the _colloquial_ sense.
> >
> > I expect you phrased that backwards, yes?  If you use a new-in-2.1
> > feature, then of course it's not going to run under 2.0.  The other
> > direction is almost always tractable, although in some cases it does
> > take foresight, or the active application of hindsight, to pull it off.
>
> I don't think he phrased it backwards.  "If you use a new-in-2.1
> feature" presupposes that 2.1 has features that aren't in 2.0, and I
> think James is arguing that it should not.  The issue is just how
> often you're willing to tell people they have to upgrade.
>
> If I'm running 2.0, and 2.1 comes out, it's pretty similar, so I don't
> upgrade.  Then someone sends me a script that using some new-in-2.1
> feature and I have to upgrade.  Then 2.2 comes out with new features
> of its own, someone sends me a 2.2 script and I have to upgrade again.
> Next, 2.3 comes out and I want to run a script that uses bools.
> Whoops, another upgrade.

FUD.

> It gets tedious!

Indeed.

If you need a newer version of Python to run someone's cool script,
just `make altinstall` of the newer version and use the shiny new
Python for that one cool script only.

Upgrading Python is not a boolean operation <wink>. Various Python
versions can live happily side by side. FWIW, I currently have
installed three different versions on one machine and four on another.

-- 
Christian Tanzer                                         tanzer at swing.co.at
Glasauergasse 32                                       Tel: +43 1 876 62 36
A-1130 Vienna, Austria                                 Fax: +43 1 877 66 92