[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The looming Python 3(000) monster



On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar
<abu_hurayrah hidayahonline org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:40 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> 2008/12/5 Toshio Kuratomi <a badger gmail com>:
>>
>> Maybe I am oversimplifying. But what about using 2.6+ (<3.0) and
>> ensure that all code is compatible with 3. And still have 3 in
>> parallel for those who want it. So we target 2.6+ , but have 3.0 there
>> to ensure everything would work with it, and for early adopters/devs
>>
>> --
>> Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
>> ( www.pembo13.com )
>>
>
> It would be very hard to write 2.6 code that is completely compatible
> with 3.0, because 3.0 has changed many fundamental language constructs,
> including even the "print" statement, which in 3.0 is a function (syntax
> change).

I believe 'print' is a poor example as it is very easy to fix. Are
there other, more problematic ones?

> I am not sure how far the from __future__ import feature will work for
> such changes as that.

Neither am I.


-- 
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]