On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [GvR] > > >. After > > all we already have lots of places where Python 2.x supports an old > > and a new way (e.g. string exceptions up to 2.5, classic classes, old > > and rich comparisons). > > I thought the whole point of 3.0 was a recognition that all that > doubling-up was a bad thing and to be rid of it. Why make the > situation worse? ISTM that we need two versions of oct() like > we need a hole in the head.
Raymond, I am getting really sick and tired of your strong language like this. It feels like a personal attack to me, over and over. You seem to be the only one advocating 2.6 stay lean and mean (except of course when *you* want something new). I don't want to go over this discussion again. I've drawn the line at breaking code that works under 2.5; you need to be satisfied with that. > Heck, there's potentially a case to be > made that we don't need oct() at all. IIRC, unix permissions like > 0666 were the only use case that surfaced. > > Also, I thought that the only reason you allowed b'' to be an alias for '' > in 2.6 was that it was the only way 2-to-3 converter would work. > That same rationale doesn't seem to apply here. I don't really see > why the necessity of b'' should be seen as opening the flood gates > to backport everything without regard to whether it makes Py2.6 better. Again with the colorful language. Nobody is opening floodgates. Enough said or I start using colorful language myself. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
