Tony Lownds wrote:
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-January/070665.html
>
> What's the cost of keeping sys.exc_info() on 3.0? If that cost is a
> hindrance on 3.0, then
> fine, sys.exc_info() and the ability for module authors to use a
> single codebase on 2.x and
> 3.0 can be given up.
Well, This is how I see it. (but I believe it's been said here before a well)
It's not a present cost, but a future cost. There have been lots of times
where
a suggestion has been put forth in 2.x to do x,y and z. Only to be found, no
that can't be done because it would break, u, v or w. The more things there
are, the more chance something new will break one of them.
There are a lot of things that haven't been done yet in computer science, and
to
give python 3.x the best chance of being a part of those future things, (by
adding them to python), it's best that it is as clean as it can be at the
start.
Of course 'clean as can be' is subjective, so it's not a line carved in
stone.
And it's also not one blindly carved.
I expect that no matter how different 2.x is from 3.x, someone will find a way
to make 2.x programs work on it with a minimum of trouble if not outright as
is.
Writing an 2.x interpreter for 3.x is probably very doable, (especially
with
a little 'C' magic thrown in). And it may not even run slower. One of the
benefits of having a clean break, is it gives a sure target for such efforts.
Yes, I'm a optimist. ;-)
Ron
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
