On 1/16/07, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Thomas Wouters wrote: > > There seems to be rather a lot of confusion. No one is suggesting > > Python 3.0 be anything less for the sake of backward compatibility. > > Instead, it has been suggested Python 2.6 (and possibly 2.7) be > > something *more* in order to provide for an easier upgrade path. No > > compromises in Python 3.0. > > True: nobody is suggesting python 3.0 be anything less. But, I am > indeed suggesting that Python 3.0 be something *more*: I am > suggesting that people keep in mind the ease of writing of a program > which can run on both 2.5 and 3.0. And wherever possible, act so as > to preserve that ease. That may indeed involve a "compromise" in 3.0.
I'm not keen on compromises in 3.0, but without specific proposals I don't see why we're arguing. So, please, what specific thing(s) are you proposing we do in 3.0? Please make a list of specifics rather than attempting at specifying a general rule to match things that could go into the list; you've tried the latter and I still don't know what you want. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
