Terry Reedy schrieb: > James Y Knight wrote: > >> If that happens, it's not true that there's *nowhere* to go. A solution >> would be to discard 3.x as a failed experiment, take everything that is >> useful from it and port it to 2.x, and simply continue development from >> the last 2.x release. And from there, features can be deprecated and >> then removed a few releases later, as is the usual policy. > > The once 'usual policy' of removal was changed several years ago to > 'defer removals until 3.0' because people wanted a more stable language > and claimed that they would prefer to deal with several removals all at > once. So old-style classes were kept around long past when they would > have been removed under the old 'usual policy'. Ditto for old-style int > / int and some others. Or one can simply recognize that 3.0 was the > 'few releases later' release of that policy. > > The other big change was switching to unicode strings from ascii strings > with optional unicode string add-on. That was/is/will-be a hassle > regardless of when and what name, but necessary for Python to be a > modern world language.
>From my experience, string to unicode migration really is the biggest pain when porting anything that handles real-world data. An interesting experiment would have been to split the big changes in two parts, e.g., a 2.95 that only has the string to unicode changes, and a 3.0 that has all the rest. Of course, people would have complained about having to port twice :) Georg _______________________________________________ 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
