Aaron Watters wrote: > On Apr 16, 2:33 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either you evolve the >> language and break things, or you keep it static and nothing breaks. > > I disagree. You can add lots of cool > stuff without breaking the existing code base, mostly. > For example the minor changes to the way ints will work will > effect almost no programs. > > I don't see the urgency to clean up what are essentially > cosmetic issues and throw out or > require rewrites for just about all existing Python > code. Python 2.6 isn't fundamentally awful like Perl 4 was. > The cost paid for these minor improvements is too high in my > book. But I suppose if it is going to happen do it sooner > rather than later. Just *please* *please* don't > systematically break the pre-existing code base again for a > very long time, preferable ever.
I'm pretty sure the 3.0 compatibility breakage is a one-shot deal. If it's not I won't be the only one looking for Guido with a bog stick in my hand ... regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
