James Y Knight writes: > > On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote: > > > 2010/11/8 James Y Knight <f...@fuhm.net>: > >> On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote: > >>> So it can be done, but the question is "Why?" > >> > >> To keep the batteries included? > > > > But they'll only be included in > 2.7, which won't be used much, [...] > > If there was going to be an official python.org sanctioned Python > 2.8 release, I'm not at all sure that'd be the case. Since there > isn't going to be one, then yes, that's probably true.
Which pretty much demonstrates that the argument for a sanctioned 2.8 is weak, and ditto for adding features to 2.7. Python 2.7 is a great language; existing projects which need to go beyond that need to port to a different language. The OP is already doing that IIUC: Stackless is a pretty faithful implementation of Python (in several versions of the language, too!), but not quite 100%, right? OTOH, how many derivatives has C spawned? Or Pascal, FORTRAN, LISP? ML? And people continue to find that variety *constraining*, and invent new languages! python-dev's decision to offer that different language as Python 3, where *almost all* of your skills will upgrade transparently (even though unfortunately a lot of code won't, at least not today), is probably a great boon to developers *in* Python. Time will tell. _______________________________________________ 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
