On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 15:23 -0500, R. David Murray wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:50:21 -0500, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote: > > Currently we handle 3.2 compatibility in packages that "straddle" via > > six-like functions. We can continue doing this as necessary. If the > > It seems to me that this undermines your argument in favor of u''. > Why can't you just continue to do the above for 3.3 and beyond?
I really don't know how long I'll need to do future development in the subset language of Python 2 and Python 3 because I can't predict the future. It could be two years, it might be five. Who knows. But I do know that I'm going to be developing in the subset of Python that currently runs on Python 2 >= 2.6 and Python 3 >= 3.2 for at least a year. And that will suck, because that language is a much less fun language in which to develop than either Python 2 or Python 3. Frankly, it's a pretty bad language. If we make this change now, it means a year from now I'll be able to develop in a slightly less sucky subset language if I choose to drop support for 3.2. And people who don't try to support Python 3 at all til then will never have to program in the suckiest subset like I will have had to. Note that u'' literals are sort of the tip of the iceberg here; supporting them will obviously not make development under the subset an order of magnitude less sucky, just a tiny little bit less sucky. There are other extremely annoying things, like str(bytes) returning the repr of a bytestring on Python 3. That's almost as irritating as the absence of u'' literals, but we have to evaluate one thing at a time. - C _______________________________________________ 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
