Pep 3105: the end of print?

[Ben Finney]

"Edward K Ream" <edreamleo at charter.net> writes:

> > Isn't the very concept of major releases (1.x, 2.x, 3.x) that they
> > *can* be not backwards-compatible with previous releases?
>
> Not at all.

In the context of the question, this answer seems to say that a major
release *must* be backwards-compatible (i.e. "can [may] not be not
backwards-compatible").

Is that what you intend to say?

If so, I disagree strongly. I assert that a major release *may* be
backwards-incompatible, in well-defined ways. That's the only way to
get rid of some kinds of cruft.

So long as it's done in a well-documented way, with a change in major
version number, it's a reasonable way (probably the *only* reasonable
way) to remove particular kinds of cruft from any application -- even
if that application is a programming language.

-- 
 \     "To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to |
  `\                unlearn old falsehoods."  -- Robert Anson Heinlein |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney