Blog writes:
> Where did you come up with that information? Almost all of the major
> distros ship with 2.6.x - CentOS, OpenSuSe, Ubuntu, Fedora. (Debian
> does ship with 2.5, but the next major release "sid' is due out in Q2)
I don't see Python 2.6 in my CentOS 5.4 installation. All I see is
2.
Christian Heimes wrote:
> Blog wrote:
>> WTF? Where'd you hear about version 2.8? FRI, 2.7 is and will be THE
>> LAST version of the 2.x series - "the" End-Of-Life for Python 2
>
> Where do you get your information from?
It was discussed repeatedly on python-dev, last time when the release
anno
On 1/30/2010 10:06 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Blog writes:
(Debian does ship with 2.5, but the next major release "sid' is due
out in Q2)
Sid is the perpetual development playground (“unstable”), never released
as a suite, but a proving ground for packages to determine their fitness
for going to
On 1/30/2010 11:47 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Blog wrote:
WTF? Where'd you hear about version 2.8? FRI, 2.7 is and will be THE
LAST version of the 2.x series - "the" End-Of-Life for Python 2
Where do you get your information from? Your answer is the first that
clearly marks the end of lifetim
Blog wrote:
> WTF? Where'd you hear about version 2.8? FRI, 2.7 is and will be THE
> LAST version of the 2.x series - "the" End-Of-Life for Python 2
Where do you get your information from? Your answer is the first that
clearly marks the end of lifetime for the 2.x series. I didn't know that
and I
On 1/30/10 11:29 AM, Nobody wrote:
Arguably, Python 3 has not yet been accepted by the market.
Part of it is down to a catch-22: applications won't use Python 3 if the
libraries on which they depend don't support it, and support for Python 3
by libraries will be influenced by the perceived dema
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
> Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.
Arguably, Python 3 has not yet been accepted by the market.
Part of it is down to a catch-22: applications won't use Python 3 if the
libraries on which they depend don't support it, and su
Blog writes:
> (Debian does ship with 2.5, but the next major release "sid' is due
> out in Q2)
Sid is the perpetual development playground (“unstable”), never released
as a suite, but a proving ground for packages to determine their fitness
for going to the next level of testing.
The next-to-b
On 1/28/2010 8:44 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
Steve Holden writes:
Kindly confine your debate to the facts and keep the snide remarks to
yourself. Like it or not Python 3 is the future, and unladen swallow's
recent announcement that they would target only Python 3 represented a
ground-breaking advanc
On 1/28/2010 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
Where did you come up with that information? Almost all of the major
distros ship with 2.6.x - CentOS, Ope
On Jan 28, 9:34 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
> > Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
> > announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
> > wrong way to conduct a development effort.
>
> Ou
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Duncan Booth writes:
>
>> Here's what I see in the Ubuntu packages. Python 3 seems only to be in the
>> universe repositories so far.
>>
>> Dapper: Python 2.4.2
>> Hardy: Python 2.5.2
>> Intrepid: Python 2.5.2, 3.0~b3 (universe)
>> Jaunty: Pyth
Duncan Booth writes:
> Here's what I see in the Ubuntu packages. Python 3 seems only to be in the
> universe repositories so far.
>
> Dapper: Python 2.4.2
> Hardy: Python 2.5.2
> Intrepid: Python 2.5.2, 3.0~b3 (universe)
> Jaunty: Python 2.6.2, 3.0.1 (universe)
> Karmic: Python 2.6.4rc1, 3.1 (un
On Jan 29, 12:25 am, "Martin v. Loewis" wrote:
> > Well, I'd consider that an official release. Note that I didn't claim
> > there was no hope PSF wouldn't change it's mind on 2.8.
>
> I'd like to point out that the PSF formally doesn't have any say in
> this.
Doesn't PSF own the Python trademar
On Jan 27, 2:56 pm, John Nagle wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> > Hi folks,
>
> > I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
> > periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
> > posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply ar
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson writes:
>
>>> 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
>>>
>>> FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
>>
>> This latter statement is false, Fedora 11 and 12 come with python 2.6
Anssi Saari wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson writes:
>
>>> 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
>>>
>>> FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
>>
>> This latter statement is false, Fedora 11 and 12 come with python 2.6.
>
> How does your mention of
Daniel Fetchinson writes:
>> 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
>>
>> FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
>
> This latter statement is false, Fedora 11 and 12 come with python 2.6.
How does your mention of one distro counter that claim? Pe
Stefan Behnel writes:
> 'Stable Debian' has a long tradition of being late and outdated on arrival.
> That doesn't mean you can't use existing Debian packages on it.
Yes, but that's beside the point. No released version of Debian ships
with Python3 or even 2.6.
Oh, and RHEL5 and CentOS5 ship wi
On 2010-01-29, Neil Hodgson wrote:
> Looks to me like the problem with Perl 6 was that it was too
> ambitious, wanting to fix all perceived problems with the
> language.
I thought Python was Perl with all the perceived problems fixed.
--
Grant
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytho
"Martin v. Loewis" writes:
> Not being interested in the PEP process is your choice, of course, but
> you shouldn't complain afterwards that your opinion wasn't considered
> if you didn't actually voice it appropriately.
+1 QOTW
--
\“I installed a skylight in my apartment. The people
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:33:58 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Perhaps Steven could tell you about a lovely Australian meaning for
> > the word “date”.
>
> This is a family list, so perhaps I shouldn't. :)
>
> In Australia slang, "date" is short for "date hole", which is the
> Why do I feel like there's less of an onus on Unladen Swallow to
> _actually prove itself in substantial real world usage_ before
> integration into CPython than there is on even the smallest of modules
> for inclusion in the standard library?
Because it's a VM change, not an end-user change. VM
> Well, I'd consider that an official release. Note that I didn't claim
> there was no hope PSF wouldn't change it's mind on 2.8.
I'd like to point out that the PSF formally doesn't have any say in
this.
Instead, releases are created by the release manager, who gets appointed
by Guido van Rossum
> Python has had
> previous major changes in the past (e.g. 1.5 to 2.0 and 2.1 to 2.2) and
> hardly anyone made a complaint.
I think this is actually false for the switch from 1.5 to 2.0. People
complained a lot, and announced that they won't switch to Python 2 in
any foreseeable future, and ind
Looks to me like the problem with Perl 6 was that it was too
ambitious, wanting to fix all perceived problems with the language.
Python 3 is much more limited in scope: at its core its Python with
Unicode fixed and old junk removed.
Neil
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-lis
geremy condra wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, and completely off-topic, why has Perl 6 gone so badly?
>
> Too much like Perl.
I was going to suggest that it's probably due to the multitude of ways
to it could be done :)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-li
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano <
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>> Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
>> announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>> Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
>> announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
>> wrong way to conduct a development e
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
> announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
> wrong way to conduct a development effort.
Out of curiosity, and completely off-topic, why has Perl
John Nagle wrote:
>
>Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market. Instead, there's
>now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8. Python 3 has turned into
>a debacle like Perl 6, now 10 years old.
Although I happen to be one of the folks who are reluctant to switch to
Python 3, I have to s
Terry Reedy wrote:
> This statement was to counter the 'myth' that US was only targeted at
> 2.x when the current situation is quite the opposite.
Not so much 'myth' as 'outdated information', they were very clear
that 2.x was the initial target.
> In particular, several people said that the spe
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:33:58 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> Antoine Pitrou writes:
>>
>>> Le Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:19:24 +, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE - Python 3 coders are no more likely to get a d
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:33:58 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou writes:
>
>> Le Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:19:24 +, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
>> > 4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
>> >
>> > FALSE - Python 3 coders are no more likely to get a date than any
>> > other
Ethan Furman wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE
What?!? Drat!!! Guess I'll have to learn Lisp... ;)
~Ethan~
Learn to say this fast, you'll impress the hell out of them:
Chaps with chapped lips lisp.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman
On Jan 28, 11:35 am, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > 4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
>
> > FALSE
>
> What?!? Drat!!! Guess I'll have to learn Lisp... ;)
Irresisible? Ha! The chicks will think you have a harelip.
>
> ~Ethan~
--
http://mail.python.org/mai
Antoine Pitrou writes:
> Le Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:19:24 +, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
> > 4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
> >
> > FALSE - Python 3 coders are no more likely to get a date than
> > any other programmer.
>
> They spend less time coding, so they /can/ get m
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE
What?!? Drat!!! Guess I'll have to learn Lisp... ;)
~Ethan~
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 1/28/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
Regardless of how magnaminous the people of PSF are, the unfortunate
reality is that trademark owners are forced by the law to be
"particularly petty". PSF's IP lawyer will advise not to allow
unsanctioned fork of Python 2.7 to call
Carl Banks wrote:
> On Jan 28, 8:10 am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Neil Hodgson wrote:
>>
>>> Carl Banks:
There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
perpetuity. Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be
able to call
On Jan 28, 8:10 am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> In article ,
> Neil Hodgson wrote:
>
> >Carl Banks:
>
> >> There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
> >> perpetuity. Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be
> >> able to call it Python.
>
> > Ov
Le Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:36:29 -0800, alex23 a écrit :
>
> I've been a big supporter of Py3 from the beginning, but this repeated
> claim of US becoming the mainline interpreter for 3.x pretty much kills
> dead a lot of my interest.
As long as the U-S JIT can be disabled at compile-time (and also a
Le Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:19:24 +, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
> 4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
>
> FALSE - Python 3 coders are no more likely to get a date than any
> other programmer.
They spend less time coding, so they /can/ get more "dates" (what a
strange English w
Stefan wrote:
> >From an implementors point of view, it's actually quite the opposite. Most
> syntax features of Python 3 can be easily implemented on top of an existing
> Py2 Implementation (we have most of them in Cython already, and I really
> found them fun to write), and the shifting-around in
In article ,
Neil Hodgson wrote:
>Carl Banks:
>>
>> There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
>> perpetuity. Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be
>> able to call it Python.
>
> Over time there may be more desire from those unable or unwilling to
>up
In article ,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:25:46 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
>>
>> When Python 2.6 came out, Jython was still on 2.2. The difference
>> between 2.2 and 2.6 is almost as big of a difference as between 2.6 and
>> 3.0. In that time, you had the introduction of the
Stefan Behnel writes:
> The amount of work that the Jython project put into catching up from 2.1 to
> 2.5/6 (new style classes! generators!) is really humongous compared to the
> adaptations that an implementation needs to do to support Python 3 code.
I wonder whether Jython could borrow code fro
Ben Finney, 27.01.2010 22:50:
> Christian Heimes writes:
>
>> John Nagle wrote:
>>> 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
>>>
>>> FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
>> You are wrong. Modern versions of Debian / Ubuntu are using Python
>> 2.6.
>
Benjamin Kaplan, 27.01.2010 22:25:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM, John Nagle wrote:
>> 2. Python 3 is supported by multiple Python implementations.
>>
>>FALSE - Only CPython supports 3.x. Iron Python, Unladen Swallow,
>>PyPy, and Jython have all stayed with 2.x versions of Py
On 1/27/2010 8:36 PM, alex23 wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers have
conservatively proposed its integration in CPython 3.3.
This statement was to counter the 'myth' that US was only targeted at
2.x when the current situation is quite t
Steve Holden writes:
> Kindly confine your debate to the facts and keep the snide remarks to
> yourself. Like it or not Python 3 is the future, and unladen swallow's
> recent announcement that they would target only Python 3 represented a
> ground-breaking advance for the language.
My take on thi
John Nagle wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
>> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
>> posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
>> not aware of the fa
Carl Banks:
> There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
> perpetuity. Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be
> able to call it Python.
Over time there may be more desire from those unable or unwilling to
upgrade to 3.x to work on improvements to 2.x,
On Jan 27, 5:36 pm, alex23 wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers have
> > conservatively proposed its integration in CPython 3.3. I would not be
> > completely shocked if it happens in 3.2.
>
> Why do I feel like there's less of an onus o
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:28:08 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> 6. The code for Python 3 was handed down to Guido from the Heavens,
>> carved into stone tablets by the Gods themselves.
>
> That is heresy. The direction was up, not down.
SPLITTER!!!
--
Steven
--
http://
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers have
> conservatively proposed its integration in CPython 3.3. I would not be
> completely shocked if it happens in 3.2.
Why do I feel like there's less of an onus on Unladen Swallow to
_actually prove itself in
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:25:46 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
> When Python 2.6 came out, Jython was still on 2.2. The difference
> between 2.2 and 2.6 is almost as big of a difference as between 2.6 and
> 3.0. In that time, you had the introduction of the boolean type,
> generators, list comprehensi
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> 6. The code for Python 3 was handed down to Guido from the Heavens,
> carved into stone tablets by the Gods themselves.
That is heresy. The direction was up, not down.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jan 27, 2:19 pm, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
> On 10:07 pm, pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Last I heard, don't remember where, the plan was for Python 2.7 to be
> >the last version in the Python 2 line. If that's true, Python 3
> >acceptance is further along at this point than anticipa
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
>> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
>> posters mean to spread false information on purpose,
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete,
In article ,
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>That said, I don't expect to start using Python 3 until library
>availability or my Linux distro forces me to.
If python 3 is much more efficient than python 2, or it has features
I really need for some application I'll write in the future, I might
be tempted
In article ,
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>1. Print statement/function creates incompatibility between 2.x and 3.x!
>
>Certainly false or misleading, if one uses 2.6 and 3.x the
>incompatibility is not there. Print as a function works in 2.6:
Yes, but does print as a statement work?
Yo
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:25 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM, John Nagle wrote:
> > Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
> >> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I d
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
>> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
>> posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
>> not aware of the facts.
>>
>> My list is surely incomplete, plea
On 1/27/2010 3:56 PM, John Nagle wrote:
2. Python 3 is supported by multiple Python implementations.
FALSE - Only CPython supports 3.x. Iron Python, Unladen Swallow,
PyPy, and Jython have all stayed with 2.x versions of Python.
Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers
On Jan 27, 2:56 pm, John Nagle wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> > Hi folks,
>
> > I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
> > periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
> > posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply ar
On 10:07 pm, pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:56�pm, John Nagle wrote:
Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.
No it's not fathomably arguable, because there's no reasonable way
that Python 3 could have fully replaced Python 2 so quickly.
At best, you could reasonabl
On Jan 27, 12:56 pm, John Nagle wrote:
> Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.
No it's not fathomably arguable, because there's no reasonable way
that Python 3 could have fully replaced Python 2 so quickly.
At best, you could reasonably argue there hasn't been enough time to
tell.
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:25 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM, John Nagle wrote:
> Give the package maintainers time to update. There were some pretty
> big changes to the C API. Most of the major 3rd party packages like
> numpy and MySQLdb have already commited to ha
Christian Heimes writes:
> John Nagle wrote:
> > 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
> >
> > FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
>
> You are wrong. Modern versions of Debian / Ubuntu are using Python
> 2.6.
Only if by “modern” you mean “not
Adam Tauno Williams writes:
> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 12:56 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
> > 2. Python 3 is supported by multiple Python implementations.
> > FALSE - Only CPython supports 3.x. Iron Python, Unladen Swallow,
> > PyPy, and Jython have all stayed with 2.x versions of Python.
>
>
John Nagle wrote:
> 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
>
> FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
You are wrong. Modern versions of Debian / Ubuntu are using Python 2.6.
My Ubuntu box has python3.0, too.
> 2. Python 3 is supported by multip
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM, John Nagle wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
>> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
>> posters mean to spread false information on purpose, t
John Nagle writes:
> Myths about Python 3:
>
> 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
>
> FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at
> best.
There's a big difference between “What list of versions of Python does
ship with?” versus “Which one
On Jan 27, 9:22 am, Daniel Fetchinson
wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
>
> >> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
> >> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
> >> posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
> >> not aware
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 12:56 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
> > periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
> > posters mean to spread false information on purpose, th
On 2010-01-27, John Nagle wrote:
> Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.
Let's just say that it hasn't yet been accepted by the market. ;)
> Instead, there's now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8.
> Python 3 has turned into a debacle like Perl 6, now 10 years
> old.
I think
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete,
On Jan 27, 8:42 am, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 01/28/10 01:32, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>
>
>
> > Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
>
On 01/28/10 01:32, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete,
>> 1. Print statement/function creates incompatibility between 2.x and 3.x!
>>
>> Certainly false or misleading, if one uses 2.6 and 3.x the
>> incompatibility is not there. Print as a function works in 2.6:
>>
>> Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
>> [GCC 4.4.1 20090818 (Red Hat 4.4.
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
>> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
>> posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
>> not aware of the facts.
>>
>> My list is surely incomplete, plea
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Daniel Fetchinson
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
> periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
> posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
> not aware
Daniel Fetchinson, 27.01.2010 11:32:
> 1. Print statement/function creates incompatibility between 2.x and 3.x!
>
> Certainly false or misleading, if one uses 2.6 and 3.x the
> incompatibility is not there. Print as a function works in 2.6:
>
> Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
> [
86 matches
Mail list logo
