I wrote PEP 606 "Python Compatibility Version" which tries to address a similar problem, but with a different approach: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0606/
It mentions PEP 497 by the way ;-) It has been discussed at: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/SETZ6U7Z2VOLXN6DSCN7NJ5KOKLAXM3O/ But I'm not sure of my own idea :-) The PEP doesn't support updating a project one file after the other. It's more a all-or-nothing global approach. Victor Le jeu. 7 nov. 2019 à 01:59, Brett Cannon <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Thanks to Ed for writing the PEP, but the steering council decided to reject > PEP 497. The website has not caught up to the rejection notice as I type > this, but we rejected https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0497/ due to the > `__past__` concept being too much work for what would be gained (we seem to > be doing fine without it). As for the tighter request for providing > backwards-compatibility, that can be subsumed into PEP 387. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/MRIRFTNHDYJLFHGMNYX72UXG735JFFZH/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ -- Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3ZIL24Z5LYKPXGVVKWPCE6UGCJAGQLYK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/