Am 08.01.2014 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014, at 06:06 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On 8 Jan 2014 08:44, "Eric V. Smith" <e...@trueblade.com> wrote: >> > >> > On 1/7/2014 7:33 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> > > A PyPI module is not so great because you'll have to change every >> > > formatting operation to use a function from a module rather than the % >> > > operator or the format method. >> > >> > I think this is the crux of the issue. Are we trying to say "porting >> > your existing code will be easier", or "change your existing code to >> > this new library, and we'll provide the library on 2.x and 3.y" (for >> > some values of x and y). >> > >> > I think the former is the right way to go, but I also think if we do >> > that we should shoot for 3.4, and this would necessitate a delay in 3.4. >> > Providing this feature for 3.5 might be too late for the target audience >> > of code porters. >> >> I'm saying hacking in a complex change in a few weeks when there isn't >> consensus even on the basics of the design just because a few moderately >> high profile developers failed to understand what "5 years to be the >> default choice for new projects" meant would be the height of >> irresponsibility. > > It's not design from scratch, since it should be fairly close to the 2.x > string formatting mini-languages.
Yes, I think the feature set should be settled upon quickly. >> The 5 year goal was for the Python 3 ecosystem to be a sufficiently >> functionally complete alternative to Python 2 for it to be recommended by >> default for every use case where Python 2 wasn't already being used. >> >> Addressing the key remaining barriers to migration for existing Python 2 >> users would be an excellent objective to attain before we end upstream >> support for Python 2.7, but it's one that would be better addressed by a >> slightly shorter dev cycle than normal for 3.5 than it would be by >> falling >> into the "just one more feature" trap for Python 3.4. > > I think a shorter cycle for 3.5 is fine, too. Great! I agree with Nick that 6 months is too short, but I would definitely start with betas after 6 months. Georg _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers