On Jun 2, 1:44 am, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> wrote: .. > Just another example (excluding print 1/2 and unicode) where 3.x > seems to be completely compatible with 2.x/ (tongue-in-cheek)
One of the key purposes of the 3.x line of code is to get rid of warts in the language. As a result, if someone is relying on warts, then their code will break when changing from 2.x to 3.x. IMO, this is actually a good thing since it encourages the reduction in warty code. (People who want to use 2.x and 3.x can either use 2to3 and maintain 2to3-able code or write code that works in both 2.x and 3.x - which is eminently doable) > (do Brits say tongue-in-cheek?) Yes. Michael. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
