Joshua Zucker wrote: Different people are saying differently nuanced things, true enough.
But I was pointing to a particularly post, which seemed to have a way, way down the road approach. You can check me out on this by looking at the Python3000 list of yesterday. But in these kinds of discussions one suspects someone may be stating things a little more strongly than they would otherwise, outside of the polemic impact they are looking to achieve. >But maybe some of those possibilities are really obsolete, and >raw_input() is equally obsolete. Why not learn about functions, or >about import, on day 1 anyway? Either way, raw_input() becomes >unnecessary. > > That seems to be Kirby's position, that obsoleting raw_input() obsoletes some teaching approaches that are obsolete. I am not willing to say that, never having experienced the approach - and having enough on my plate of things about which I feel stronger, with which to piss people off. ;) Andre is concerned about its effects on CP4E. Maybe, OTOH, it is an appropriate step toward CP4E 3000 - a movement with which I might find myself more aligned ;) The truth is I was not meaning to re-open the discussion of raw_input. It has moved to python-dev where it belongs - especially for those who hope for some reversal of the "done deal" status. Having never used it while it was there, but with having it there never getting in the way of anything I wanted to do, I intend to stay out of the discussion. The read/write and import issues that happen to derive from the discussion of raw_input are to me the more generally intersting topics at this point. Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig