* Stefan Behnel:
Alf P. Steinbach, 13.01.2010 06:39:
* Steven D'Aprano:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:42:28 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
It is hopeless, especially for a newbie, to create correct Python
2.x+3.x compatible code, except totally trivial stuff of course.
So you allege, but André points out that there are existing,
non-trivial applications that work unmodified under both Python 2.x
and 3.x. For example, CherryPy:
http://www.cherrypy.org/wiki/WhatsNewIn32
You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, but not your own
reality, and the reality is that it is NOT "hopeless" to write
correct Python code that operates under both 2.6 and 3.x. It's not
hopeless because it's been done. You might even be able to target
versions older than 2.6 if you really work at it, as CherryPy does.
Continuing to assert something which is demonstrably untrue simply
means you lose credibility among those who are familiar with Python.
You're confusing the existence of special cases where something has
been done, at great cost, with a belief that it's practical to do so
in general.
Unless you can prove that it's *not* practical in general, you will have
to live with the fact that it was, and continues to be, practical for
existing code bases (and certainly for new code), so it clearly is not
hopeless to do so, not even "in general".
Simple proof: Python 3.x still lacks widespread usage. :-)
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
