On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:17:57 -0800, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote:
> > The best argument is that there already exists tons and tons of Python 2
> > code that already does:
> >
> > Â u'that'
>
> +1
>
> > Needing to change it to:
> >
> > Â u('that')
> >
> > 1) Requires effort on the part of a from-Python-2-porter to service
> > Â the aesthetic and populist goal of not having an explicit
> > Â but redundant-under-Py3 literal syntax that says "this is text".
> >
> > 2) Won't actually meet the aesthetic goal, as
> > Â it's uglier and slower under *both* Python 2 and Python 3.
> >
> > So the populist argument remains.. "it's too confusing for people who
> > learn Python 3 as a new language to have a redundant syntax". Â But we've
> > had such a syntax in Python 2 for years with b'', and, as mentioned by
> > Armin's PEP single-quoted vs. triple-quoted strings forever.
> >
> > I just don't understand the pushback here at all. Â This is such a
> > nobrainer.
It's obviously not a *no*-brainer or you wouldn't be getting pushback :)
I view most of the pushback as people wanting to make sure all the
options have been carefully considered. This should all be documented
in the PEP.
> I agree. Just let's start deprecating it too, so that once Python 2.x
> compatibility is no longer relevant we can eventually stop supporting
> it (though that may have to wait until Python 4...). We need to send
> *some* sort of signal that this is a compatibility hack and that no
> new code should use it. Maybe a SilentDeprecationWarning?
Isn't that what PendingDeprecationWarning is? This seems like the kind
of use case that was introduced for (though it is less used now that
DeprecationWarnings are silent by default).
--David
_______________________________________________
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
