On 9/1/05, Nick Craig-Wood <nick at craig-wood.com> wrote: > I'm all for removing the cruft in python 3, and giving it a bit of a > spring clean, but please, please don't make it feel like a different > language otherwise the users will be deserting in droves (no-one likes > to be told that they've been using the wrong language for all these > years). IMO it won't feel like a different language; syntactically, the most far-fetched change is probably dropping the print statement (on which I just opened a new thread). > If come python 3, there is a 99% accurate program which can turn your > python 2.x into python 3 code, then that would ease the transition > greatly. That might not be so easy given the desire to change most list-returning functions and methods into iterator-returning ones. This means that *most* places where you use keys() your code will still run, but *some* places you'll have to write list(d.keys()). How is the translator going to know? Worse, there's a common idiom: L = D.keys() L.sort() that should be replaced by L = sorted(D) how is the translator going to recognize that (given that there are all sorts of variations)? -- --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