> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 09:31:58PM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote: > >Well... hrm... Iterators, generators and the type/class unification strike > >me as more than enough reason to call it Python 3.0. Or we could ship 2.2 > > Agreed. The version number being a few decimal place shifts away from > Python 3000 is cute, too. > > --amk Well, that's one of the reasons why I *don't* want this to be the 3.0 release. Python 2.2 is *not* Python 3000, it is only a small step on the way. I also think that as soon as we announce something that smells like Py3k to the users, there will be a huge effort to keep Python 2.x alive. This could cause a split in the user community of gigantic porportions, and we'd run the risk that most of the users would stay at Python 2.x forever. This in turn would require us to maintain that, probably release 2.2, 2.3 and further versions. Despite what started this discussion, I think there will only be a very small number of real incompatibilities between 2.1 and 2.2: one or two new keywords (and we may have a way to reduce this to zero by using a future or directive statement), and the object introspection API will change. I'm not planning on breaking classic classes in any significant way -- that will be reserved for 2.3 or later (this is the domain of PEP 254 which is deliberately empty so far). Q. If an operation that failed with an AttributeError now fails with a TypeError (or the other way around), how important is that incompatibility? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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