On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 13:07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Terry Reedy wrote: >> and this could give some people a mis-impression, most likely negative, >> as to the magnitude and nature of the change. Most of the code I am now >> writing would, I believe, run with 2.5 except for print(..., file=xxx). >> And I know that there was concern for backward compatibility to the >> point that some changes were rejected (renaming builtins) or delayed >> (deleting duplicate test asserts) for that reason. So I would soften >> the statements to "... version of the language that is partially >> incompatible with... " and "were made without being bound by backward >> compatibility," > > I would agree with Terry - while there are backwards incompatibilities, > they aren't gratuitous. > > Then again, Guido does seem to want to discourage people from trying to > target the common subset of the two languages instead of using 2to3 as a > compilation step from the python3 version. >
It makes sense if your code would have required jumping through hoops to keep the base use-case. But if the only major difference is something easily covered by a __future__ statement (think print_function or unicode_literals, I believe although that __future__ statement is not documented anywhere according to Google), then I honestly think it's okay to try to target the subset. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
