Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> writes: > Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> writes: > > The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities > > between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time. > > The issue is less the "incompatibilities" than the -backwards- > incompatibilities.
Yes, that's what I meant. Python 3 is deliberately under no obligation to support code that works in Python 2. If something needs fixing, and that fix would involve breaking Python 2 code, then that's not a consideration any more. The predictable result is that Python 3 will continue to gain backward-incompatible changes in future. > On the other hand, the door appears closed for Python 3 adding more > stuff that breaks Python 2 code. What gives you that idea? Can you reference a specific statement from the PYthon developers that says that? -- \ “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential | `\ things in rationality.” —Bertrand Russell | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list