Thomas Wouters writes: > > This is unrealistic. It would seriously annoy Arch's intended > > audience. (Eg, recently I've become a lot more favorable to using > > Word instead of OOo because Word doesn't pop up a useless warning > > every time I save a .doc file.) Practically speaking, it would have > > to be off by default, like Python pending deprecation warnings. > > Wait, what? Warning about impending brokenness is *more annoying* than just > plain breaking? How on earth would the warning be "useless"? > Keep in mind that the warning would only show up *if stuff would otherwise > not work*. As I understood it, what you proposed was that in a *Python 2-based* distribution thinking about switching to Python 3 as the default /usr/bin/python, they should first substitute a bitch'n'run-python2 script for the python (Python 2) binary, and after that works the bugs out, switch to Python 3. In that scenario, the bitching is useful *exactly* once: the first time anybody reports the bug to someone who can do something about it. But for some time, *every time* you run your app, it bitches uselessly: it would work fine if you just install Python 2 as /usr/bin/python, without bitching. That's not very graceful. And "some time" will often stretch into weeks or months for any given user, since few distros will bless a new package with zero testing. > No, that's not my point at all. The problem isn't that Python 3 is > incompatible with Python 2. The problem is that stuff broke without > (apparently) fair warning. Warning was given; they weren't listening.
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