On Jun 28, 1:58 pm, "OKB (not okblacke)"
wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > For the rest of us, you can do a lot with just Python 3.1,
> > with or without C modules. Whether it does *enough* to be
> > considered for deployment depends on what you're deploying
> > it to do. I for one would not hes
Terry wrote:
> > IronPython targets Python 2.6.
>
> They plan to release a 2.7 version sometime this year after CPython2.7
> is released. They plan to release a 3.2 version early next year, soon
> after CPython. They should be able to do that because they already have
> a 3.1 version mostly done
Am 29.06.2010 20:30, schrieb Paul Rubin:
> "Martin v. Loewis" writes:
>> And indeed, that's available, by means of the key= argument to list.sort.
>
> Unfortunately what's needed for more generality is the ability to supply
> a comparison function, which Python2 also offers, but Python3 removes.
"Martin v. Loewis" writes:
> And indeed, that's available, by means of the key= argument to list.sort.
Unfortunately what's needed for more generality is the ability to supply
a comparison function, which Python2 also offers, but Python3 removes.
I gave an example a while back of wanting to compa
> I should point out that this wasn't a mere whimsy on Guido's part.
> Mathematically, supporting larger-than and less-than comparisons on
> complex numbers *is* a bug -- they're simply meaningless mathematically.
> (Which is greater, 2-1i or -1+2i?)
However, that's true for many other values t
On 6/28/2010 12:25 AM, John Nagle wrote:
Unfortunately, that's not what's happening in the development
pipeline.
Please do some research before posting year-old news as current news.
> Unladen Swallow targets Python 2.6.1.
It used 2.6 for development because that was the current stable relea
On Jun 28, 12:58 pm, "OKB (not okblacke)"
wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > None of PyPy, Unladen Swallow or IronPython are dependencies for
> > Python 3.x to be "ready for prime time". Neither is C module
> > support.
>
> I think this is being overoptimistic. For me, "ready for prime
>
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> None of PyPy, Unladen Swallow or IronPython are dependencies for
> Python 3.x to be "ready for prime time". Neither is C module
> support.
I think this is being overoptimistic. For me, "ready for prime
time" means "I can rely on being able to find a way to do w
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:25:49 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
> Unfortunately, that's not what's happening in the development
> pipeline. PyPy targets Python 2.5. Unladen Swallow targets Python
> 2.6.1. IronPython targets Python 2.6. C module support for CPython 3.x
> is still very spotty. We have
On 6/27/2010 8:28 PM, Carl Banks wrote:
On Jun 27, 5:12 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
I think that covers the main transitions in core Python.
Nice post, but it's missing one thing.
The main benefit of Python 3 for Joe Q. Scripter is this:
The Python team doesn't have to spend any effort on mainta
On Jun 27, 5:12 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I think that covers the main transitions in core Python.
Nice post, but it's missing one thing.
The main benefit of Python 3 for Joe Q. Scripter is this:
The Python team doesn't have to spend any effort on maintaining a lot
of old obsolete cruft, and can
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:12:10 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> 7. Order comparisonS
>
> In early Python1, I believe all objects could be (arbitrarily) compared
> and sorted. When Guido added the complex type, he decided not to add an
> arbitrary order, as he thought that could mask bugs.
I should poin
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, MRAB wrote:
> Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
>>>
>>> Terry Reedy wrote:
Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn
and the i
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:51 PM, eric dexter wrote:
> On Jun 27, 7:46 pm, MRAB wrote:
>> Stephen Hansen wrote:
>> > On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
>> >> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> >>> Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
>> >>> consequence that Python would become increas
On Jun 27, 7:46 pm, MRAB wrote:
> Stephen Hansen wrote:
> > On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
> >> Terry Reedy wrote:
> >>> Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
> >>> consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn
> >>> and the interpreter increasin
Stephen Hansen wrote:
On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn
and the interpreter increasingly difficult to maintain with
volunteers. I think 2.7 is
On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn
and the interpreter increasingly difficult to maintain with
volunteers. I think 2.7 is far enough in that dire
Terry Reedy wrote:
Some people appear to not understand the purpose of Python3 or more
specifically, of the changes that break Python2 code. I attempt here to
give a relatively full explanation.
SUMMARY: Python3 completes (or makes progress in) several transitions
begun in Python2.
In parti
18 matches
Mail list logo
