On 1/12/07, Mike Orr <sluggoster at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 1/12/07, glyph at divmod.com <glyph at divmod.com> wrote: > > The benefit (to me, and to many others) of 3.x over 2.x is the promise > of > > more future maintenance, not the lack of cruft. > > The benefit (to me, and to many others) of 3.x over 2.x is the promise > of getting rid of cruft. If we're going to re-add cruft for the sake of temporary > compatibility, we may as well just stick with 2.x. You have to take a > quantum leap sometimes or you end up working around the same old > mistakes. There seems to be rather a lot of confusion. No one is suggesting Python 3.0be anything less for the sake of backward compatibility. Instead, it has been suggested Python 2.6 (and possibly 2.7) be something *more* in order to provide for an easier upgrade path. No compromises in Python 3.0. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070115/725469b2/attachment.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