Raymond Hettinger <rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
That won't be necessary. The change from == to <= is innocuous. There's no need to lock-up maxsize in a read-only property. We're consenting adults. Besides, it would probably break someone-else's odd use case. I don't want to expand the API, nor do I want to cripple anyone's ability to do weird stuff with it. FWIW, the full() and empty() methods are usually not a good idea. It's better to catch a Full exception. Otherwise, the information can be out of date by the time you try to use it. I'm going to mark this as a 3.2 only change. There were no guarantees about the behavior when maxsize is changed, nor should we make such guarantees. ---------- versions: -Python 2.7, Python 3.1 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10110> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
