On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Carl Trachte wrote:
On 11/4/09, sstein...@gmail.com <sstein...@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe the 3.x line should just be put out of our misery, merged back
to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and proceed as Glyph suggested in passing with
increasing levels of deprecation until it just turns into 3.x on its
own by running out of numbers.
<delurk>
As a user, I'm horrified. Granted, I'm not the most high powered
user, but . . .
my employer is already providing me with a 3.0 Python version on one
of my work computers with the expectation that I'll be using it more
and more.
Sorry to butt in, but is this a joke? I thought all this was hashed
out prior to inventing python 3.0.
Yes, of course it was a joke.
2.7 won't "turn into" Python 3.x any more that Perl will turn into Ruby.
Oh, wait, maybe that was a bad example.
The point was, that Python 3.x does not seem to be something that can
be "evolved" into and, all along, I have been suggesting that, if
Python 3.x is the future, let's let 2.7 be the last of the 2.x series,
backport whatever will make it easiest to make 2to3 do as much of the
work as possible, and just decide that 2.7 is the end of the line.
I shudder to think how much time has been spent hacking things around
to make them compatible with the 2.x series while trying to move to 3.x.
If 2.x is over, let it be over and let's all focus on moving into
Python 3.x with no more time doing other than bug-fixes on 2.x
versions of things.
S
_______________________________________________
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
