Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Bryan wrote: > > Python 3(K) likes to use the same '.py' file extension as its > > incompatible predecessors, > > And so it should.
We disagree. Not surprising in a "gotcha's" thread. > > and in some/many/most *nix implementations, > > it likes to install in the same place. > > I won't speak for Unixes, but that is certainly not the case with Linux. > Each Python version gets its own location: Yes, that was just silly of me to write that. All I want is a new general convention for the most-likely-to-work invocation that won't break with the change: "#!/usr/bin/env python" for Python 2 versus, for example, "#!/usr/bin/env python3". Of course that's not an issue of where python is installed, just a recommended naming convention. > I don't intent to be rude, but anyone who isn't a complete newbie to > programming but is surprised to the point of "gotcha" by version > compatibilities simply hasn't been paying attention. My perspective is simply different from yours. I'm not the one who installs python on most of the boxes where I work or play. There's little consistency, so I love conventions that usually work. I'd like to advocate for Python 3, but the default install on Windows commandeers the '.py' extension and breaks stuff that currently works. Here's a discussion of the issue from late 2008. Amusingly, one of the arguments for not changing the file extension was that Python 2 would be gone in a few years. http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t647251-running-python-2-and-python-3-on-the-same-machine.html -Bryan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list