On 06:49 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I think we should draw a line in the sand and resolve not to garbage-up Py2.6. >The whole Py3.0 project is about eliminating cruft and being free of the >bonds of backwards compatibility. Adding non-essential cruft to Py2.6 >goes against that philosophy.
Emotionally charged like "cruft" and "garbage" are obscuring the issue. Let's replace them with equivalents charged in the opposite direction: "I think we should draw a line in the sand and resolve not to compatibility-up Py2.6. The whole Py3.0 project is about eliminating useful libraries and being free of the bonds of working software. Adding non-essential forward-compatibility to Py2.6 goes against that philosophy." The benefit (to me, and to many others) of 3.x over 2.x is the promise of more future maintenance, not the lack of cruft. In fact, if I made a list of my current top ten problems with Python, "cruft" wouldn't even make it in. There is lots of useful software that will not work in the 3.0 series, and without forward compatibility there is no way to get there from here. As Guido said, if 3.0 is going to break compatibility, that burdens the 2.x series with the need to provide transitional functionality. The upgrade path needs to be available in one version or the other, or 2.x needs to be maintained forever. You can't have it both ways.
_______________________________________________ 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
