Raymond Hettinger 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. 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. > It certainly doesn't seem to have the same urgency for cases where 2to3 can unambiguously do the right thing.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
