guido wrote: > 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"? every single Python release ever made has broken some of my code (often in rather esoteric ways). does that make them all "experimental"? imo, the only reasonable strategy for an ISP (or anyone offering a "standard python install" for a group of users) is of course to install new versions beside the old ones, notify users, and switch the default a couple of months after the new version has been installed. </F>
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