Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Feb 2, 2008 6:55 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Georg> I would prefer a "python3" alias analogous to the current > > Georg> "python" alias, at least as long as Python 2.x is still in > > Georg> wide use. > > > > So, "make install" would install a python3.0 executable and make > > python3 a symlink. Makes sense to me. "make bdfl-install" could > > also create a symlink to python3 called "python". ;-) > > > > Anybody who installed multiple versions of Python on their computer > > today - at least in the Unixoid world - already has to know about > > "make altinstall" so they don't accidentally obliterate the python > > symlink. I don't understand what all the fuss is. > > Me neither. If you don't want to type "python3.0" why not create a > shell alias?
We just went through this with CherryPy 3, and I wish we had used "cherrypy3" as the package name. Granted, that's a library and not an executable, so the biggest benefit (fewer import conflicts with a new name) doesn't really apply to Python. But there are other benefits to "python3". You can read code examples and work with users much more easily, saving a lot of emails in the cycle: "what version are you using?"; "dunno--how do I find out?". We're looking at several years of people mistakenly trying to run 2.x code on 3.x and vice-versa. That doesn't vanish completely; there will still be minor releases, but those are supposed to be more backward-compatible. I'd like to hear from e.g. the sqlite3 folks about similar experiences. Robert Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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
