Re: Python 4 and ‘python3’
Barry Warsaw writes: > AFAIK, there is *no* official declaration (e.g. from Guido or the > mythical Python 4 release manager) about this either way. In support of your position, Guido van Rossum has informally implied version “3.10” is feasible for a future Python 3 https://twitter.com/gvanrossum/status/583346987925278720>. I had thought GvR expressed a distaste for Semantic Versioning but can't find it now. So, yes, my panic is lessened :-) > I predict that when the time comes, it'll generate a gigathread's > worth of discussion, 3 or 4 competing PEPs, and then Guido will just > pronounce. Hopefully, informed by reasoned argument about consequences, more than aesthetic preferences of a small group (I'm still sore about the process evidenced in the Python VCS decisions, so don't wholly trust this will be better). -- \“With Lisp or Forth, a master programmer has unlimited power | `\ and expressiveness. With Python, even a regular guy can reach | _o__) for the stars.” —Raymond Hettinger | Ben Finney
Re: Python 4 and ‘python3’
Don't panic. :) On Nov 03, 2016, at 09:28 AM, Ben Finney wrote: >But the above post implies that pointless confusion will be directly >courted, merely because of some aesthetic objection to a two-digit >component in the version string. Those are Nick's opinions. Everyone's got one! AFAIK, there is *no* official declaration (e.g. from Guido or the mythical Python 4 release manager) about this either way. >At the current rate of Python releases, it's not very far in the future >before the Python release managers must decide what the version string >for “the release that comes after 3.9” will be. We're up to Python 2.7.12 so the double digit version component ship has sailed and it wasn't all that Y2K-y, so I doubt there will be a hard and fast prohibition against 3.10. Even if there is, we won't see a possible 3.10 until 2022 if I'm doing my math correctly and we stick to the roughly 18 month release cycle. I predict that when the time comes, it'll generate a gigathread's worth of discussion, 3 or 4 competing PEPs, and then Guido will just pronounce. Cheers, -Barry
Re: Python 4 and ‘python3’
Barry Warsaw writes: > On Nov 02, 2016, at 01:57 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > > >Certainly the command ‘python3’ should only ever point to the Python > >3 interpreter. > > > >If upstream ever releases a “Python 4” but expects the interpreter > >for that to also be named ‘python3’, I think we can declare upstream > >to be directly courting user pain, and secede on behalf of our users. > > I wouldn't at all be surprised if /usr/bin/python is reclaimed for > some future post-Python2-demise Python 4 interpreter. It might even be > a good thing since I'm not sure I'd want a /usr/bin/python4. What about a Python 4.0 that is just “the release that comes after 3.9”? http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html> Such a “Python 4.0” release would inevitably be referred to as Python 4, and inevitably will be considered *not the same* as ‘/usr/bin/python3’. That's what I'm saying is pointless user confusion: do we use ‘/usr/bin/python3’ for the interpreter? Do we use ‘/usr/bin/python4’? Why, if they're deliberately compatible interpreters — indeed, they may be the *same* interpreter? Such a thoroughly, and persistently, confusing state of affairs is entirely avoidable (just use Semantic Versioning, don't name it “4.0” until it's backward-incompatible with all “3.xx”). I had thought that was the sane and prevailing attitude of the Python release managers. But the above post implies that pointless confusion will be directly courted, merely because of some aesthetic objection to a two-digit component in the version string. > Not that I'm expecting Python 4 any time soon […] At the current rate of Python releases, it's not very far in the future before the Python release managers must decide what the version string for “the release that comes after 3.9” will be. Is there anyone seriously courting the idea that “Python 4.0 is part of the Python 3 line”? I would hope not, yet the above post implies it. Can that be quashed decisively? -- \“If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and | `\you friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag | _o__) would be to pretend you were swimming.” —Jack Handey | Ben Finney
Re: Python 4 and ‘python3’ (was: /usr/bin/python2 shebangs)
On Nov 02, 2016, at 01:57 PM, Ben Finney wrote: >Donald Stufft writes: > >> /usr/bin/python3 being Python 4.x is a bit weird though > >Seriously? Who is proposing that? > >> and it’s likely that Python 4.x is not going to be another break the >> world release. > >Certainly the command ‘python3’ should only ever point to the Python 3 >interpreter. > >If upstream ever releases a “Python 4” but expects the interpreter for >that to also be named ‘python3’, I think we can declare upstream to be >directly courting user pain, and secede on behalf of our users. I wouldn't at all be surprised if /usr/bin/python is reclaimed for some future post-Python2-demise Python 4 interpreter. It might even be a good thing since I'm not sure I'd want a /usr/bin/python4. Not that I'm expecting Python 4 any time soon, but if Larry Hasting's gilectomy work actually pans out, that'd be a solid contender for it. Cheers, -Barry
Python 4 and ‘python3’ (was: /usr/bin/python2 shebangs)
Donald Stufft writes: > /usr/bin/python3 being Python 4.x is a bit weird though Seriously? Who is proposing that? > and it’s likely that Python 4.x is not going to be another break the > world release. Certainly the command ‘python3’ should only ever point to the Python 3 interpreter. If upstream ever releases a “Python 4” but expects the interpreter for that to also be named ‘python3’, I think we can declare upstream to be directly courting user pain, and secede on behalf of our users. -- \“[It's] best to confuse only one issue at a time.” —Brian W. | `\ Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie, _The C programming language_, 1988 | _o__) | Ben Finney
