On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I'm not keen on compromises in 3.0, but without specific proposals I > don't see why we're arguing. So, please, what specific thing(s) are > you proposing we do in 3.0? Please make a list of specifics rather > than attempting at specifying a general rule to match things that > could go into the list; you've tried the latter and I still don't know > what you want.
I can't come up with a full list, as I don't know everything that's changed or is being planned to change. But here's some stuff I do know about: 1) don't remove dict.iteritems, dict.itervalues, dict.iterkeys 2) For the bytes type, keep enough of an overlap with the current use of str-as-raw-bytes that common operations work with either one (so that I can, f.e. read from a socket or a file and process that data). Without seeing the details for how bytes is going to be implemented, it's hard to say exactly what this means. 3) Preferably continue to allow old syntax when adding new syntax (e.g. exception catching syntax). Alternatively, a completely reliable automated conversion script to convert the syntax would also be acceptable if not quite as convenient. Mainly I'd just like to see "allowing the ability to write code which is portable between 2.5 and 3.0" as an explicit goal of the python 3.0 release. I trust that if the developers agree upon that as being a goal, the right things would happen, whatever they may be for the specific change in question. James _______________________________________________ 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
