On 12 Jan, 10:04 pm, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
[...]
I've done a fair bit of 3.x porting, and I'm firmly convinced that
2.x can do nothing:
[...]
Inherently, 2.8 can't improve on that.
I agree that there are limitations like the ones you've listed, but I
disagree with your conclusion. Maybe you assume that it's just as
hard
to move to 2.8 (using the py3k backports not available in say 2.5) as
it
is to 3.x?
Not at all, no. I'd rather expect that code that runs on 2.7 will run
on 2.8 unmodified.
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 reading this thread carefully enough to make any arguments on
either side, but I can contribute a fact.
Twisted very likely does not support 2.8 today. I base this on the fact
that Twisted does not support 2.7 today, and I expect 2.8 will be more
like 2.7 than it will be like 2.3 - 2.6 (which Twisted does support).
When I say "support" here, I mean "all of the Twisted unit tests pass on
it".
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
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
