Eric Smith wrote:
> Robert Brewer wrote:
> > Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> >> I thought the whole point of 3.0 was a recognition that all that
> >> doubling-up was a bad thing and to be rid of it. Why make the
> >> situation worse? ISTM that we need two versions of oct() like
> >> we need a hole in the head. Heck, there's potentially a case to be
> >> made that we don't need oct() at all. IIRC, unix permissions like
> >> 0666 were the only use case that surfaced.
> >
> > Postgres bytea coercion is a frequent use case for oct() in my
world.
> > But I agree we don't need two versions.
>
> Unless you're trying to write code to work with both 2.6 and 3.0.
Who would try that when PEP 3000 says (in bold type no less):
There is no requirement that Python 2.6 code will run unmodified
on Python 3.0. Not even a subset.
? And why should python-dev support such people?
Robert Brewer
fumanchu at aminus.org
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