[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu May 27 02:03:23 CEST 2010
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 27/05/10 02:27, Terry Reedy wrote:
I am suggesting that if we add a package, we do it right, from the beginning.
This is a reasonable point of view, but I wouldn't want to hold up PEP 3148 over it (call it a +0 for the idea in general, but a -1 for linking it to the acceptance of PEP 3148).
A separate short PEP proposing a migration plan that could be accepted or rejected independently of PEP 3148 would likely be valuable.
E.g.
- no change in 2.x (obviously)
- add concurrent.* alternate names in 3.x
- rearrange documentation in 3.x, with pointers from old names to new names
- put a PendingDeprecationWarning on the old names, but otherwise leave them alone indefinitely
- add 2to3 fixers to translate from the old names to the new names in import statements
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]