[resending because it never showed up in the Python-Dev archives, & this is my last decent chance to do email this week ] [Jeremy Hylton] > What is the agenda for this session on Developers' Day? Since we're > the developers, it would be cool to know in advance. [Andrew Kuchling] > Does the session still exist? The brochure lists it as session D2-1, > but that's now listed as "Reworking Python's Numeric Model". I think that's right. I "volunteered" to endure numeric complaints, as there are at least a dozen contentious proposals in that area (from rigid 754 support to extensible literal notation for, e.g., users who hate stuffing rationals or gmp numbers or fixed-point decimals in strings; we could fill a whole day without even mentioning what 1/2 does!). Then, since collaborative development ceased being a topic on Python-Dev (been a long time since somebody brought that up here, other than to gripe about the SourceForge bug-du-jour or that Guido *still* doesn't accept every proposal <wink>), the prospects for having an interesting session on that appeared dim. Maybe that was wrong; otoh, Jeremy just now failed to think of a relevant issue on his own <wink>. > And I'm also thinking of putting together a "Python 3000 Considered > Harmful" anti-presentation for the Py3K session... which is at the > same time as the session I'm responsible for. <sigh> Don't tell anyone, but 2.1 *is* Python 3000 -- or as much of it as will be folded in for 2.1 <0.3 wink>. About people not moving to 2.0, the single specific reason I hear most often hinges on presumed lack of GPL compatibility. But then people worried about that *have* a specific reason stopping them. For everyone else, I know sysadmins who still refuse to move up from Perl 4. BTW, we recorded thousands of downloads of 2.0 betas at BeOpen.com, and indeed more than 10,000 of the Windows installer alone. Then their download stats broke. SF's have been broken for a long time. So while we have no idea how many people are downloading now, the idea that people stayed away from 2.0 in droves is wrong. And 2.0-specific examples are common on c.l.py now from lots of people too. only-developers-are-in-a-rush-ly y'rs - tim
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