Paul Rubin <no.email <at> nospam.invalid> writes: > > I actually think Python3 actually didn't go far enough in fixing > Python2. I'd have frankly preferred delaying it by a few years, to > allow PyPy to come to maturity and serve as the new main Python > implementation, and have that drive the language change decisions. > Instead we're going to have to give up a lot of possible improvements we > could have gotten from the new implementation.
Why would having PyPy as the reference implementation have made this design decisions turn out better? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list