On 9/1/05, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Static typing is radical stuff and doesn't hurt the common subset since it's optional. Making unicode the default is pretty radical and can be done without breaking the common subset (with the help of little tweaks like allowing str() to return unicode now like int() can return longs). Iterators and new-style classes were pretty radical changes that were managed elegantly and meet an an even stronger requirement than the common subset - they were achieved with full backward compatibility. Python 3 will most probably make big changes in the internal implementation and the C API. Perhaps it will even be generated from PyPy. I don't think keeping the common subset will really stand in the way of making big improvements. The proposed 3.x changes that break it seem more like nitpicking to me than significant improvements. Python is terrific. I find nothing I really want to change. Remove old cruft and add some brand new stuff, yes. But nothing to change. Oren _______________________________________________ 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
