Oren Tirosh wrote: > While a lot of existing code will break on 3.0 it is still generally > possible to write code that will run on both 2.x and 3.0: use only the > "proper" forms above, do not assume the result of zip or range is a > list, use absolute imports (and avoid static types, of course). I > already write all my new code this way. > > Is this "common subset" a happy coincidence or a design principle?
I think it's because those are the most obvious things right now. The really radical stuff won't come up until active development on Python 3000 actually starts. And it will, so any "common subset" will probably not be very large. IMO, if we are going to restrict Python 3000 enough to protect that "common subset," then there's not enough payoff to justify breaking *any* backwards compatibility. If my current codebase[1] isn't going to be supported in Python 3000, I'm going to want the Python developers to use that opportunity to the fullest advantage to make a better language. [1] By which I mean the sum total of the code that I use not just code that I've personally written. I am a library-whore. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
