Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0 >> beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer >> to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean >> up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule >> is that we will be included in OSX. That's a much bigger deal for 2.6 >> than for 3.0 (I doubt that Apple would add two versions anyway). > > The MajorOS Vendor (tm) may be willing to ship a 3.0 beta if it's far > enough along, though not as the primary Python version. They clearly > want 2.6 for that.
Given that the sum total of actual Python 3.0 programs is currently pretty close to zero, I don't really see any reason for *any* OS vendor (even Linux distros) to be including a 3.0 interpreter in their base install at this point in time. I personally expect it to stay in the "optional extras" category until some time next year. Pessimists-have-more-opportunities-to-be-pleasantly-surprised'ly, Nick. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org _______________________________________________ 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
