PEP 328 update

[Paul Boddie]

Bernhard Herzog <bh at intevation.de> wrote in message news:<s9z65b6c1v7.fsf at salmakis.intevation.de>...
>
> Still, in my eyes especially the early versions of the pep are an example of
> the carelessness with wich some core python developers toss backwards
> compatibility out of the window.  I'm not against breaking compatibility
> when it is a clear gain for the language but it never should be done
> lightly and should always result in substantial improvements in the
> language that would not be possible otherwise.  I don't think that's the
> case for this pep, though.

I can see the point of resolving ambiguities with imports, especially
with common module names, but then I understand your frustrations with
the backward compatibility breakage and continuous feature infusion.
People go on about how Jython is important to general Python adoption
before leaving it in the dust under a thick layer of increasingly
difficult-to-justify functionality. People also state how important it
is for Python to adapt to new platforms, become faster, have a smaller
footprint, scale across multiple processors, and yet all of these
goals become steadily harder to reach as more marginal stuff gets
added to the mix.

I'm sure that various comp.lang.python contributors have scoffed,
Slashdot-style, at languages designed by committees, unaware that the
newsgroup and the various mailing lists are increasingly doing a good
job of emulating such committees quite effectively.

Paul