> I still have not > >> seen a single post from you even hinting that you might have any > >> responsibility in the matter. > > > > Well then, let me set the record straight on that one point: > > > > I admit that it was entirely my mistake (and mine alone) to implicitly > > assume, by adopting such a logging & persistence architecture (dating > > back to 1.5.2, mind you!), that new keywords would not be introduced > > into the Python language so as to potentially break all existing Python > > code. > > > > Silly me! How unreasonable. > > > > Pythons backwards compatibility policy is available here: > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0005/
Thank you! Just to end on a more positive note: As someone who makes a living from Python rather than someone who lives to make Python, I recognize that there will be ancillary casualties in every major battle. Though I may whine incessantly about all of our pre-2.5 log-file/documents being one such casualty (your various accusations notwithstanding, we did indeed patch our own code as soon as the deprecation warnings appeared in 2.5!), if the Python 2.6 "as" keyword break is truly for the greater good, then so be it. Warren -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
