On 3/28/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not concerned about that. Everyone here will ensure that if a > feature should go into 2.x, it will. The feature may be implemented > first in 3k, the PEP may be 3xxx, but when it's ready, it will migrate > to 2.x also. This is important for moving to 3k. We need to make the > migration as simple as possible. "Backporting" these features is one > aspect of making it easier. > > No one is forgetting about 2.x by any means. There seemed to be > general consensus that there will be at least a couple more 2.x > releases. Or maybe that was just my view and no one disagreed. :-)
It's my view too. But I think there will be less reason/opportunity to backport 3.x features to 2.x than there were, for example, in the Zope 3 vs. Zope 2 situation. Zope 3 was a completely new system where much new ground was broken, including new implementations of functionality that already existed in Zope 2. When the new implementation in Zope 3 was deemed mature enough and a serious improvement on the equivalent in Zope 2, it was sometimes backported. The Python situation is a bit different -- we're not starting with a reimplementation from the ground up, and I expect that many of the new features will be constrained by syntax or semantics (e.g. Unicode-only strings) which will prevent them to be backported. However, I suppose a bytes type might find its way into 2.6, and perhaps also an alternate I/O stack. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
