On 2/27/2012 4:10 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 21:07 +0000, Paul Moore wrote:
On 27 February 2012 20:39, Chris McDonough<chr...@plope.com> wrote:
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.
So. Am I misunderstanding here, or are you suggesting that this
particular PEP doesn't help you much, but if it's accepted, it
represents "the thin end of the wedge" for a series of subsequent PEPs
suggesting fixes for a number of other "extremely annoying things"...?
Last December, Armin wrote
"And in my absolutely personal opinion Python 3.3/3.4 should be more
like Python 2* and Python 2.8 should happen and be a bit more like
Python 3."
* he wrote '3' but obviously means '2'.
http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/12/7/thoughts-on-python3/
I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's certainly what it sounded
like to me!
I'm way too lazy. The political wrangling is just too draining
(especially over something so trivial).
Turning Python 3 back into Python 2, or even moving in that direction,
is neither 'trivial' nor a 'no-brainer'.
> But I will definitely support
other proposals that make it easier to straddle, sure.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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
