On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:51 PM, eric dexter <irc.dex...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 27, 7:46 pm, MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote: >> Stephen Hansen wrote: >> > On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote: >> >> Terry Reedy wrote: >> >>> Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the >> >>> consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn >> >>> and the interpreter increasingly difficult to maintain with >> >>> volunteers. I think 2.7 is far enough in that direction. >> >> >> [snip] >> >> It's clear that Guido's time machine is limited in how far it can travel >> >> in time, because if it wasn't then Python 1 would've been more like >> >> Python 3 and the changes would not have been necessary! :-) >> >> > I'm pretty sure he wrote the Time Machine in Python 1.4, or maybe 1.3? >> > Either way, its well established that a time machine can't go back in >> > time any farther then the moment its created. >> >> > I don't at all remember why, don't even vaguely understand the physics >> > behind it, but Morgan Freeman said it on TV, so its true. >> >> That's if the time machines uses a wormhole: >> >> >>> import wormhole >> >> Unfortunately it's not part of the standard library. :-( >> >> > So he couldn't go back and fix 1.0, physics won't allow him. So we're >> > stuck with the Py3k break. :) >> >> > > planned obselence.. It would be nice if a pause was taken at 3.5 and > a huge number of libraries were made available for 3.5.. > --
You mean as opposed to a 2-year pause at 3.1 so that a huge number of libraries and alternate Python implementations could catch up? http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3003/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list