Blog blogtes...@gmail.com writes:
Where did you come up with that information? Almost all of the major
distros ship with 2.6.x - CentOS, OpenSuSe, Ubuntu, Fedora. (Debian
does ship with 2.5, but the next major release sid' is due out in Q2)
I don't see Python 2.6 in my CentOS 5.4
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.
Arguably, Python 3 has not yet been accepted by the market.
Part of it is down to a catch-22: applications won't use Python 3 if the
libraries on which they depend don't support it, and
On 1/30/10 11:29 AM, Nobody wrote:
Arguably, Python 3 has not yet been accepted by the market.
Part of it is down to a catch-22: applications won't use Python 3 if the
libraries on which they depend don't support it, and support for Python 3
by libraries will be influenced by the perceived
Blog wrote:
WTF? Where'd you hear about version 2.8? FRI, 2.7 is and will be THE
LAST version of the 2.x series - the End-Of-Life for Python 2
Where do you get your information from? Your answer is the first that
clearly marks the end of lifetime for the 2.x series. I didn't know that
and I'm
On 1/30/2010 11:47 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Blog wrote:
WTF? Where'd you hear about version 2.8? FRI, 2.7 is and will be THE
LAST version of the 2.x series - the End-Of-Life for Python 2
Where do you get your information from? Your answer is the first that
clearly marks the end of lifetime
On 1/30/2010 10:06 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Blogblogtes...@gmail.com writes:
(Debian does ship with 2.5, but the next major release sid' is due
out in Q2)
Sid is the perpetual development playground (“unstable”), never released
as a suite, but a proving ground for packages to determine their
Christian Heimes wrote:
Blog wrote:
WTF? Where'd you hear about version 2.8? FRI, 2.7 is and will be THE
LAST version of the 2.x series - the End-Of-Life for Python 2
Where do you get your information from?
It was discussed repeatedly on python-dev, last time when the release
Python has had
previous major changes in the past (e.g. 1.5 to 2.0 and 2.1 to 2.2) and
hardly anyone made a complaint.
I think this is actually false for the switch from 1.5 to 2.0. People
complained a lot, and announced that they won't switch to Python 2 in
any foreseeable future, and
Well, I'd consider that an official release. Note that I didn't claim
there was no hope PSF wouldn't change it's mind on 2.8.
I'd like to point out that the PSF formally doesn't have any say in
this.
Instead, releases are created by the release manager, who gets appointed
by Guido van Rossum.
Why do I feel like there's less of an onus on Unladen Swallow to
_actually prove itself in substantial real world usage_ before
integration into CPython than there is on even the smallest of modules
for inclusion in the standard library?
Because it's a VM change, not an end-user change. VM
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:33:58 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Perhaps Steven could tell you about a lovely Australian meaning for
the word “date”.
This is a family list, so perhaps I shouldn't. :)
In Australia slang, date is short for
Martin v. Loewis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
Not being interested in the PEP process is your choice, of course, but
you shouldn't complain afterwards that your opinion wasn't considered
if you didn't actually voice it appropriately.
+1 QOTW
--
\“I installed a skylight in my
On 2010-01-29, Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks to me like the problem with Perl 6 was that it was too
ambitious, wanting to fix all perceived problems with the
language.
I thought Python was Perl with all the perceived problems fixed.
--
Grant
--
Le Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:16:11 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
I think the reason “date” was initially used is because dates are most
familiar to us as fleshy, dark brown, wrinkled, compressed points.
My interests in etymology and scatology unite here.
Ah, I suppose it explains the strange ASCII
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de writes:
'Stable Debian' has a long tradition of being late and outdated on arrival.
That doesn't mean you can't use existing Debian packages on it.
Yes, but that's beside the point. No released version of Debian ships
with Python3 or even 2.6.
Oh, and RHEL5
Daniel Fetchinson fetchin...@googlemail.com writes:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
This latter statement is false, Fedora 11 and 12 come with python 2.6.
How does your mention of one distro
Anssi Saari a...@sci.fi wrote:
Daniel Fetchinson fetchin...@googlemail.com writes:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
This latter statement is false, Fedora 11 and 12 come with python 2.6.
How
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Anssi Saari a...@sci.fi wrote:
Daniel Fetchinson fetchin...@googlemail.com writes:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
This latter statement is false, Fedora 11 and
, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post your favorite
misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or
ask about.
Myths about Python 3:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most
On Jan 29, 12:25 am, Martin v. Loewis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Well, I'd consider that an official release. Note that I didn't claim
there was no hope PSF wouldn't change it's mind on 2.8.
I'd like to point out that the PSF formally doesn't have any say in
this.
Doesn't PSF own the
Duncan Booth duncan.bo...@invalid.invalid writes:
Here's what I see in the Ubuntu packages. Python 3 seems only to be in the
universe repositories so far.
Dapper: Python 2.4.2
Hardy: Python 2.5.2
Intrepid: Python 2.5.2, 3.0~b3 (universe)
Jaunty: Python 2.6.2, 3.0.1 (universe)
Karmic:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Duncan Booth duncan.bo...@invalid.invalid writes:
Here's what I see in the Ubuntu packages. Python 3 seems only to be in the
universe repositories so far.
Dapper: Python 2.4.2
Hardy: Python 2.5.2
Intrepid: Python
On Jan 28, 9:34 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
wrong way to
On 1/28/2010 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote:
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
Where did you come up with that information? Almost all of the major
distros ship with 2.6.x - CentOS,
On 1/28/2010 8:44 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
Steve Holdenst...@holdenweb.com writes:
Kindly confine your debate to the facts and keep the snide remarks to
yourself. Like it or not Python 3 is the future, and unladen swallow's
recent announcement that they would target only Python 3 represented a
Blog blogtes...@gmail.com writes:
(Debian does ship with 2.5, but the next major release sid' is due
out in Q2)
Sid is the perpetual development playground (“unstable”), never released
as a suite, but a proving ground for packages to determine their fitness
for going to the next level of
Benjamin Kaplan, 27.01.2010 22:25:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
2. Python 3 is supported by multiple Python implementations.
FALSE - Only CPython supports 3.x. Iron Python, Unladen Swallow,
PyPy, and Jython have all stayed with 2.x
Ben Finney, 27.01.2010 22:50:
Christian Heimes writes:
John Nagle wrote:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
You are wrong. Modern versions of Debian / Ubuntu are using Python
2.6.
Only if by
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de writes:
The amount of work that the Jython project put into catching up from 2.1 to
2.5/6 (new style classes! generators!) is really humongous compared to the
adaptations that an implementation needs to do to support Python 3 code.
I wonder whether Jython
In article pan.2010.01.28.00.35...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au,
Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:25:46 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
When Python 2.6 came out, Jython was still on 2.2. The difference
between 2.2 and 2.6 is almost as big of a
In article zt68n.3893$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au,
Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com wrote:
Carl Banks:
There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
perpetuity. Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be
able to call it Python.
Over
Stefan wrote:
From an implementors point of view, it's actually quite the opposite. Most
syntax features of Python 3 can be easily implemented on top of an existing
Py2 Implementation (we have most of them in Cython already, and I really
found them fun to write), and the shifting-around in the
Le Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:19:24 +, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE - Python 3 coders are no more likely to get a date than any
other programmer.
They spend less time coding, so they /can/ get more dates (what a
strange English word)
Le Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:36:29 -0800, alex23 a écrit :
I've been a big supporter of Py3 from the beginning, but this repeated
claim of US becoming the mainline interpreter for 3.x pretty much kills
dead a lot of my interest.
As long as the U-S JIT can be disabled at compile-time (and also at
On Jan 28, 8:10 am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
In article zt68n.3893$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au,
Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com wrote:
Carl Banks:
There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
perpetuity. Well, someone might try to
Carl Banks wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:10 am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
In article zt68n.3893$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au,
Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com wrote:
Carl Banks:
There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
perpetuity. Well, someone
On 1/28/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
Regardless of how magnaminous the people of PSF are, the unfortunate
reality is that trademark owners are forced by the law to be
particularly petty. PSF's IP lawyer will advise not to allow
unsanctioned fork of Python 2.7 to call
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE
What?!? Drat!!! Guess I'll have to learn Lisp... ;)
~Ethan~
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net writes:
Le Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:19:24 +, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE - Python 3 coders are no more likely to get a date than
any other programmer.
They spend less time coding, so they
On Jan 28, 11:35 am, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE
What?!? Drat!!! Guess I'll have to learn Lisp... ;)
Irresisible? Ha! The chicks will think you have a harelip.
~Ethan~
--
Ethan Furman wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE
What?!? Drat!!! Guess I'll have to learn Lisp... ;)
~Ethan~
Learn to say this fast, you'll impress the hell out of them:
Chaps with chapped lips lisp.
--
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:33:58 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net writes:
Le Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:19:24 +, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE - Python 3 coders are no more likely to get a date than any
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:33:58 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net writes:
Le Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:19:24 +, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
4. Python 3 will make you irresistible to women.
FALSE - Python 3 coders are no more likely to get a
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
This statement was to counter the 'myth' that US was only targeted at
2.x when the current situation is quite the opposite.
Not so much 'myth' as 'outdated information', they were very clear
that 2.x was the initial target.
In particular, several people
John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market. Instead, there's
now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8. Python 3 has turned into
a debacle like Perl 6, now 10 years old.
Although I happen to be one of the folks who are reluctant to switch to
Python
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
wrong way to conduct a development effort.
Out of curiosity, and completely off-topic, why has Perl 6
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
wrong
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
wrong
geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
Out of curiosity, and completely off-topic, why has Perl 6 gone so badly?
Too much like Perl.
I was going to suggest that it's probably due to the multitude of ways
to it could be done :)
--
Looks to me like the problem with Perl 6 was that it was too
ambitious, wanting to fix all perceived problems with the language.
Python 3 is much more limited in scope: at its core its Python with
Unicode fixed and old junk removed.
Neil
--
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post
Daniel Fetchinson, 27.01.2010 11:32:
1. Print statement/function creates incompatibility between 2.x and 3.x!
Certainly false or misleading, if one uses 2.6 and 3.x the
incompatibility is not there. Print as a function works in 2.6:
Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
[GCC
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Daniel Fetchinson
fetchin...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to
1. Print statement/function creates incompatibility between 2.x and 3.x!
Certainly false or misleading, if one uses 2.6 and 3.x the
incompatibility is not there. Print as a function works in 2.6:
Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
[GCC 4.4.1 20090818 (Red Hat 4.4.1-6)] on
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely
On 01/28/10 01:32, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
On Jan 27, 8:42 am, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/28/10 01:32, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters
, please feel free to post your favorite
misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or
ask about.
Myths about Python 3:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
2. Python 3
On 2010-01-27, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.
Let's just say that it hasn't yet been accepted by the market. ;)
Instead, there's now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8.
Python 3 has turned into a debacle like Perl 6, now 10 years
, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post your favorite
misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or
ask about.
Myths about Python 3:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros
On Jan 27, 9:22 am, Daniel Fetchinson fetchin...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
John Nagle na...@animats.com writes:
Myths about Python 3:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at
best.
There's a big difference between “What list of versions of Python does
fooOS ship
on purpose, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post your favorite
misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or
ask about.
Myths about Python 3:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE
John Nagle wrote:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
You are wrong. Modern versions of Debian / Ubuntu are using Python 2.6.
My Ubuntu box has python3.0, too.
2. Python 3 is supported by multiple
Adam Tauno Williams awill...@opengroupware.us writes:
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 12:56 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
2. Python 3 is supported by multiple Python implementations.
FALSE - Only CPython supports 3.x. Iron Python, Unladen Swallow,
PyPy, and Jython have all stayed with 2.x
Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de writes:
John Nagle wrote:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best.
You are wrong. Modern versions of Debian / Ubuntu are using Python
2.6.
Only if by “modern” you
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:25 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Give the package maintainers time to update. There were some pretty
big changes to the C API. Most of the major 3rd party packages like
numpy and MySQLdb have already
On Jan 27, 12:56 pm, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.
No it's not fathomably arguable, because there's no reasonable way
that Python 3 could have fully replaced Python 2 so quickly.
At best, you could reasonably argue there hasn't been
On 10:07 pm, pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:56�pm, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.
No it's not fathomably arguable, because there's no reasonable way
that Python 3 could have fully replaced Python 2 so quickly.
At best,
, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post your favorite
misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or
ask about.
Myths about Python 3:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most
On 1/27/2010 3:56 PM, John Nagle wrote:
2. Python 3 is supported by multiple Python implementations.
FALSE - Only CPython supports 3.x. Iron Python, Unladen Swallow,
PyPy, and Jython have all stayed with 2.x versions of Python.
Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers
to post your favorite
misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or
ask about.
Myths about Python 3:
I said myths, not facts! :)
s/Myths/Facts/
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4
don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post your favorite
misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or
ask about.
Myths about Python 3
In article mailman.1470.1264588330.28905.python-l...@python.org,
Daniel Fetchinson fetchin...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
1. Print statement/function creates incompatibility between 2.x and 3.x!
Certainly false or misleading, if one uses 2.6 and 3.x the
incompatibility is not there. Print
In article hjq8l0$ge...@reader1.panix.com,
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
That said, I don't expect to start using Python 3 until library
availability or my Linux distro forces me to.
If python 3 is much more efficient than python 2, or it has features
I really need for some
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
Hi folks,
I was going to write this post for a while because all sorts of myths
periodically come up on this list about python 3. I don't think the
posters mean to spread false information on purpose, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely
, they simply are
not aware of the facts.
My list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post your favorite
misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or
ask about.
Myths about Python 3:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
2. Python 3
On Jan 27, 2:19 pm, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 10:07 pm, pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
Last I heard, don't remember where, the plan was for Python 2.7 to be
the last version in the Python 2 line. If that's true, Python 3
acceptance is further along at this point than anticipated,
Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au writes:
6. The code for Python 3 was handed down to Guido from the Heavens,
carved into stone tablets by the Gods themselves.
That is heresy. The direction was up, not down.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:25:46 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
When Python 2.6 came out, Jython was still on 2.2. The difference
between 2.2 and 2.6 is almost as big of a difference as between 2.6 and
3.0. In that time, you had the introduction of the boolean type,
generators, list
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers have
conservatively proposed its integration in CPython 3.3. I would not be
completely shocked if it happens in 3.2.
Why do I feel like there's less of an onus on Unladen Swallow to
_actually
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:28:08 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au writes:
6. The code for Python 3 was handed down to Guido from the Heavens,
carved into stone tablets by the Gods themselves.
That is heresy. The direction was up, not down.
On Jan 27, 5:36 pm, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers have
conservatively proposed its integration in CPython 3.3. I would not be
completely shocked if it happens in 3.2.
Why do I feel like
Carl Banks:
There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
perpetuity. Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be
able to call it Python.
Over time there may be more desire from those unable or unwilling to
upgrade to 3.x to work on improvements to 2.x,
list is surely incomplete, please feel free to post your favorite
misconception about python 3 that people periodically state, claim or
ask about.
Myths about Python 3:
1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions.
FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5
Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com writes:
Kindly confine your debate to the facts and keep the snide remarks to
yourself. Like it or not Python 3 is the future, and unladen swallow's
recent announcement that they would target only Python 3 represented a
ground-breaking advance for the language.
On 1/27/2010 8:36 PM, alex23 wrote:
Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Actually, Unladen Swallow is now targeted at 3.1; its developers have
conservatively proposed its integration in CPython 3.3.
This statement was to counter the 'myth' that US was only targeted at
2.x when the current
88 matches
Mail list logo
