I understand issues and welcome any discussions. For that matter I do not rush to conclusions. I am not expert in C and Python as the rest of the folks on this list but I am pretty good with Python itself. I just suggested naming to be as simple as possible for all relevant API's including full descriptions in the code base regarding stable, semi-stable, unstable and so forth. I do that in my projects with Python libraries I write ... Sorry for intruding and possibly clouding the email thread... Regards,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022, 4:39 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote: > Sasha Kacanski writes: > > > Why you don't simplify with api A,B,C and forth and then follows > > explanation ofr what is stable, unstable, semi... So forth.... > > This is exactly what they're hammering out. It's not easy for several > reasons, chief of which is that in each case the boundary is a matter > of opinion as to the balance among what is most convenient for the > developers of Python itself, the developers of separately distributed > C/C++ modules, and for existing modules that were developed before the > divisions were set and would need to either be changed or to risk > API incompatibility with future versions of Python. The nomenclature > also matters, as individual programmers have various ideas about the > meaning of terms like "stable", and we want as much agreement as > possible that the "stable API" is "stable enough", and so on. > > If you have specific ideas about which APIs belong where, feel free to > bring them forward. But this is not a process that should be rushed > nor would anyone benefit from pushing it forward more quickly. > >
_______________________________________________ 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/CEYYEGJAYV2O5OC7KUP6D3UH5WORFWS7/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/