"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
[...]
> > But a hypothetical 2.8 would also give people a way to move closer to
> > py3k without giving up on using all their 2.x-only dependencies.
>
> How so? If they use anything that is new in 2.8, they *will* need to
> drop support for anything before it, no???
>
> > I think it's much more likely that libraries like Twisted can support 2.8
> > in the near future than 3.x.
>
> Most likely, Twisted "supports" 2.8 *today* (hopefully). But how does
> that help Twisted in moving to 3.2?
I'm not talking about Twisted moving to 3.x (FWIW, I think the only
movement there so far is some patches for some -3 warnings). The
situation I'm describing is a project X that:
(a) has 2.x-only dependencies, and
(b) would like to be as close as possible to 3.x (because they like
the new features and/or want to be as ready as possible to jump
when (a) is fixed).
So just because project X depends on e.g. Twisted, and that Twisted in
turn still supports 2.4, doesn't mean that X cannot move to 2.8, and
doesn't mean it would get no benefit from doing so.
[...]
> No, it won't. It might be if people move to 2.8 *and* drop 2.5, but they
> likely won't.
But this is my point. I think they would as an intermediate step to
jumping to 3.x (which also requires dropping 2.5, after all!), if for
some reason they cannot yet jump to 3.x, such as a 2.x-only dependency.
-Andrew.
_______________________________________________
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
