On 2/27/2012 4:10 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 21:07 +0000, Paul Moore wrote: >> On 27 February 2012 20:39, Chris McDonough<chrism at plope.com> wrote: >>> Note that u'' literals are sort of the tip of the iceberg here; >>> supporting them will obviously not make development under the subset an >>> order of magnitude less sucky, just a tiny little bit less sucky. There >>> are other extremely annoying things, like str(bytes) returning the repr >>> of a bytestring on Python 3. That's almost as irritating as the absence >>> of u'' literals, but we have to evaluate one thing at a time. >> >> So. Am I misunderstanding here, or are you suggesting that this >> particular PEP doesn't help you much, but if it's accepted, it >> represents "the thin end of the wedge" for a series of subsequent PEPs >> suggesting fixes for a number of other "extremely annoying things"...? 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/ >> I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's certainly what it sounded >> like to me! > > I'm way too lazy. The political wrangling is just too draining > (especially over something so trivial). Turning Python 3 back into Python 2, or even moving in that direction, is neither 'trivial' nor a 'no-brainer'. > But I will definitely support > other proposals that make it easier to straddle, sure. -- 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