Hopefully, I can say the following in a constructive way. I certainly don't mean to attack anyone personally for their closely held beliefs, though I might disagree with them. And you have the right to those beliefs and to express them in a respectful and constructive manner on this mailing list, which I think you've done. No criticisms there.
However, PEPs *are* official documents from the Python developer community, so I think it's required of us to present technical issues in an honest light, yet devoid of negative connotations which harm Python. On Mar 01, 2012, at 09:12 PM, Armin Ronacher wrote: >Why call it polemic? If you want to use ubuntu LTS you're forcing >yourself to stick to a particular Python version for a longer time. Not just a particular Python 3 version, but a particular Python 2 version too. And a particular kernel version, and version of Perl, Ruby, Java, gcc, etc. etc. That's kind of the whole point of an LTS. :) >Which means you don't want to have to adjust your code. Which again >means that you're better of with the Python 2.x ecosystem which is >proven, does not change nearly as quickly as the Python 3 one >(hopefully) so if you have the choice between those two you would chose >2.x over 3.x. That's what this sentence is supposed to say. That's not >polemic, that's just a fact. I don't agree with the conclusion. But none of that is germane to the PEP anyway. The PEP could simply say that for some domains, the ability to port code from Python 2 to Python 3 would be enhanced by the reintroduction of the u-prefix. It could even explain why WSGI applications in particular would benefit from this. That would be enough to justify Guido's acceptance of the PEP. Cheers, -Barry _______________________________________________ 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