On 2/27/2012 1:17 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> I just don't understand the pushback here at all. This is such a >> nobrainer. > I agree. Just let's start deprecating it too, so that once Python 2.x > compatibility is no longer relevant we can eventually stop supporting > it (though that may have to wait until Python 4...). We need to send > *some* sort of signal that this is a compatibility hack and that no > new code should use it. Maybe a SilentDeprecationWarning? Before we make this change, I would like to know if this is Armin's last proposal to revert Python 3 toward Python 2 or merely the first in a series. I question this because last December Armin wrote "And in my absolutely personal opinion Python 3.3/3.4 should be more like Python 2* and Python 2.8 should happen and be a bit more like Python 3." * he wrote '3' but obviously means '2'. http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/12/7/thoughts-on-python3/ Chris has also made it clear that he (also?) would like more reversions. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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