Extensions and Backwards Compatibility

[Kragen Sitaker]

"Aleks Jakulin" <jakulin@@ieee.org> writes:
> "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > It's pretty clear that Python 2.3 won't deviate from the past
> > strategies. 100% source compatibility, with documented exceptions, is
> > a goal; binary compatibility is not.
> 
> Such functionality would be premature in 2.3, as it might itself break
> extensions, beyond the need to recompile. However for 3000, it would definitely
> be time to consider permanently assuring binary compatibility.

It doesn't sound like binary compatibility would have helped you; it
sounds like either Python, one of the extensions you depend on, or
your own extension contains a serious bug.  All of these have new code
that might be buggy, except for your own extension; possibly your
extension contained a bug all along that simply didn't cause a crash
until now.

I wish the language would stop developing; libraries matter more.