(original) (raw)

On 15 Mar, 11:34 pm, martin@v.loewis.de wrote:
>glyph@divmod.com schrieb:
>>However, the decision was a bad one regardless of the existing policy, and
>>sets a bad precedent while we are discussing this policy. I could be
>>wrong, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that if Martin strongly
>>supports such a change, Martin would oppose a policy which would strictly
>>forbid such changes, and it is just such a policy that Python needs.
>
>I still can't guess what policy you have in mind, so I can't object to
>it :-) I may accept a policy that rejects this change, but allows
>another change to fix the problem. I would oppose a policy that causes
>this bug to be unfixable forever.

Well, there's \*also\* the fact that I strongly disagree that this is a bug, but I don't know that I could codify that in a policy. Hence the parallel discussion.

However, I do apologize for obliquely referring to this thing I'm working on without showing a work in progress. It's just that different parts of the policy will rely on each other, and I don't want to get bogged down talking about individual details which will be dealt with in the final rev. That, and I am trying to integrate feedback from the ongoing discussion...