On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 23:40, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> wrote: > You have erected a straw-man... once again. >
I think that is a red herring, not a strawman. > Most 2.x code *will not* run correctly in 3.x/ Most of the best > improvements and enhancements of 3.x will not back-port to below 2.7, and > almost none of them will back-port before 2.6 (class decorations, for > instance). > Although it is true that 2.x code will not run in a 3.x environment, the changes to the code are minimal. This would be akin to saying that a 2008 Peugeot 407 will not drive on a Canadian road because the license plate is a different shape. Just go an put a different plastic license plate holder on the Peugeot and it will run fine on the Canadian road. The changes to bring Python 2 code into Python 3 code are minimal, and it would be a terrific learning experience for the OP to go back and revise his old code to do just that. Furthermore, the OP is not just learning Python for the fun of learning Python. If that were the case, then I would agree that Python 3 is the way to go. The OP needs to use imaging libraries which may not yet work in Python 3 (I have not checked, but it is very likely that they do not). Therefore Python 3 is a non-starter in any case. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
