On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 9:33 PM Edwin Zimmerman <ed...@211mainstreet.net>
wrote:
> On 6/9/2020 9:21 PM, Jonathan Goble wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 8:47 PM Edwin Zimmerman <ed...@211mainstreet.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't this break backwards compatibility with everything the whole way
>> back to 3.0? I fear a future with where I have to run a 2to3 type tool on
>> third-party dependencies just to get them to work with my 3.7 code base.
>>
>
> My interpretation was that this would be syntactic sugar, not a
> deprecation and replacement. In other words, the existing syntax would
> still be valid forever.
>
> Correct, what I was trying to say is code bases all over the world that
> run on previous versions will start seeing this when they import a third
> party dependency that uses this "syntatic sugar":
>
> >>> print "This doesn't work before 3.10"
> SyntaxError: Missing parentheses in call to 'print'. Did you mean
> print("This doesn't work before 3.10")?
>
No different than any other newly introduced syntax (such as the walrus
operator). Libraries won't introduce the new syntax until they're ready to
drop support for the last version of Python without that syntax. Like any
syntax change, it won't commonly appear in the wild until around two to
four years after release.
>
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/EYZ7RWNI74YW2CHIRTBT6XVHM737E62C/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
