On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> >> wrote: >> > [backward-]incompatibilities between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* >> > over time. >> >> ...and? I don't get to use features from 2.7, why would I expect to >> use features from 3.3? > > Conversely, why would you support Python 3.1?
Because in 10 years the percentage of people who have Python 2.x installed will be the same as the percentage that have Python 1.x installed today. >> > Indeed, the feature moratorium is designed in part to help >> > slow-moving codebases migrate to Python 3.x before Python resumes >> > its normal pace of change again. If you're choosing to use that time >> > to further entrench codebases for Python 2.x, I think that's a >> > short-sighted choice. >> >> I welcome the day that I can stop supporting 2.x. Until then, I have >> to support both and your argument is irrelevant. > > Why do you have to support Python 3 at all? See above. > Will you expect to continue > maintaining a single code base that supports PYthon 2.x and Python 3.2, > then 3.3, and so on? Yes, with the occasional feature or bugfix. Is there an alternate interpretation I'm missing? > The only point being made here is to answer the question of why people > are saying that a single code base for both 2.x and 3.x is a maintenance > burden. If, in your case, at the present time, that's not the case, then > good for you! But it will get increasingly harder to do, and the reasons > why have now been explained. Apply them as you see fit. I see you stating that it will become harder but I don't see why that should be the case. Geremy Condra -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
