On Apr 16, 2:33 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either you evolve the > language and break things, or you keep it static and nothing breaks.
I disagree. You can add lots of cool stuff without breaking the existing code base, mostly. For example the minor changes to the way ints will work will effect almost no programs. I don't see the urgency to clean up what are essentially cosmetic issues and throw out or require rewrites for just about all existing Python code. Python 2.6 isn't fundamentally awful like Perl 4 was. The cost paid for these minor improvements is too high in my book. But I suppose if it is going to happen do it sooner rather than later. Just *please* *please* don't systematically break the pre-existing code base again for a very long time, preferable ever. -- Aaron Watters === http://www.xfeedme.com/nucular/pydistro.py/go?FREETEXT=whack -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list