On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Neil Schemenauer <nas-pyt...@arctrix.com> wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, Victor Stinner wrote: > > You should take a look at this old deferred PEP: > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0407/ > > Thanks, that's very close to what I was thinking. I would still add > that we should be extra careful about incompatible language features > until 2.7.x usage has mostly died off. That isn't logically part of > the PEP but a general development philosophy I think we should > adopt. > I love that PEP. However, I don't think the best way to attract large masses of people away from 2.7 and onto 3.* is to avoid adding features to 3.* releases: such an approach would not offer compelling reasons to migrate, as needed to overcome natural inertia. Rather, thinking of what arguments I could bring to add further support to a case for migration (wearing the "consultant's hat" which I haven't donned in 12 years, so, I'm a bit rusty:-) I think: performance/scalability; stability; cool new features; whatever extra gizmos may help existing 2.7 code run fine under new shiny 3.whatever with only automated code transformation steps in the way (reverse migration, i.e 3.foobar -> 2.7, nowhere near as important). A lot of this describes stuff that HAS been happening -- the "stability" point would be particularly well addressed by PEP 407 or some variant thereof... Alex
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
