Terry J. Reedy added the comment:

Ned, thank you for the helpful response.  Yes, I *was* proposing two versions 
in 3.5 and subsequent releases until the current version could be deleted.  Its 
an ugly, least bad alternative that only made sense under the presumption that 
'idle2' had to remain in 3.6.   With that assumption dropped ...

I would be delighted to start renaming (and refactoring) existing files in 
default *now*.  Whether to renames all at once (the current #24225 proposal) or 
in batches would be a sub-issue of #24225.

I believe that the PEP 434 exemption from separating 'behavior' from 
'enhancement' issue applies during the beta period as well as after.  For IDLE, 
danger of accidental regression and thoroughness of testing are more relevant 
for deciding timing of commits.

As for 3.5, if we assume that substantial numbers of people, including 
instructors, will use the final 3.5 (likely 3.5.3) instead of 3.6.0, then it 
might be better for users to include 'idle3' in 3.5.3 as an option.  This could 
be done a couple of weeks before the release by copying 3.6 idlelib into, for 
instance, 3.5 idlelib._, editing imports, and adding a switch to the startup 
code.  If Ned's alternative is accepted, the backport decision should be 
deferred until there is something worth backporting.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue26993>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to