This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Title: List the __future__ features in a table
Type: Stage: patch review
Components: Documentation Versions: Python 3.2, Python 2.7
Status: closed Resolution: accepted
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: georg.brandl Nosy List: ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, lehmannro, terry.reedy
Priority: low Keywords: easy, patch

Created on 2009-07-26 09:34 by ezio.melotti, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.

File name Uploaded Description Edit
future.patch lehmannro, 2009-07-26 12:42 patch for Doc/library/, trunk
future.patch lehmannro, 2009-09-14 14:00 patch #2 for Doc/library/, trunk
future.patch lehmannro, 2009-09-14 14:15 patch for Doc/library/, py3k
Messages (6)
msg90935 - (view) Author: Ezio Melotti (ezio.melotti) * (Python committer) Date: 2009-07-26 09:34
The documentation about the __future__ features [1] only lists the
features available for that particular version, without specifying when
they were added and their effects.
It would be nice to have a table with |feature|version added|effect|.
A better place for this table could also be the page of the __future__
module [2].

msg90939 - (view) Author: Robert Lehmann (lehmannro) * Date: 2009-07-26 12:42
I composed a list of __future__ features and linked the respective PEPs.

Even though the language reference would be a better place to store such
general information (being PEP'd and all) I found the library
reference's documentation to be a cleaner host for that table.

Python 3 docs would need to add the barry_as_FLUFL feature to that table.
msg91148 - (view) Author: Terry J. Reedy (terry.reedy) * (Python committer) Date: 2009-07-31 20:07
For Python3, the table should start empty as of 3.0/3.1
msg92553 - (view) Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * (Python committer) Date: 2009-09-12 20:44
Accepted, except for two things:

* I'd drop the "a0" suffix for the mandatory version. "2.2" instead of
"2.2.0a0" is much better to comprehend.

* Why the ugly markup with the PEP refs? ``:pep:`number`: blah`` should
work well.

For 3k, all previous future features are still supported, so they can go
in there as well.
msg92609 - (view) Author: Robert Lehmann (lehmannro) * Date: 2009-09-14 14:00
Implemented proposed changes.

Additionally, I'd change line 13 to state either "future statements" or
"`future`:ref:" instead of "future_statements", which does not make
sense in normal, unmarked text.
msg92610 - (view) Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * (Python committer) Date: 2009-09-14 14:09
I added a reference in line 13, changed the table header not to use
colspans (the latex writer doesn't support that), and committed as r74791.
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:56:51adminsetgithub: 50823
2009-09-14 14:15:43lehmannrosetfiles: + future.patch
2009-09-14 14:09:06georg.brandlsetstatus: open -> closed
assignee: ezio.melotti -> georg.brandl
messages: + msg92610
2009-09-14 14:00:28lehmannrosetfiles: + future.patch

messages: + msg92609
2009-09-12 20:44:09georg.brandlsetresolution: accepted
messages: + msg92553
2009-09-12 18:48:46ezio.melottisetnosy: + georg.brandl

stage: needs patch -> patch review
2009-07-31 20:07:25terry.reedysetnosy: + terry.reedy
messages: + msg91148
2009-07-26 12:42:51lehmannrosetfiles: + future.patch

nosy: + lehmannro
messages: + msg90939

keywords: + patch
2009-07-26 09:34:12ezio.melotticreate