Recently, Guido van Rossum <guido@digicool.com> said: > Sobering thought: It's possible, given all the other changes that I'm > thinking about, that it just won't be possible to make Python 2.2 > fully backwards compatible. Should we rename it to 3.0? Forget about > the changes? Label it as experimental and encourage ISPs to install > it as an "alternative" version, only available by using "python2.2"? In this respect you should also think of the people Embedding/extending Python. From the checkin messages I get the impression that all the new inheritance stuff could well break things there, and if you're going to break, say, pyapache or somesuch then a major version jump may well be called for... -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ www.oratrix.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4