Steven,
you ask good questions!
(2) Will there be automated tools for converting source code from Python 2
to Python 3000?
If you would have been to the EuroPythom 2006, you may have heard the
plans for PyPy 2.0; which may have per-module-switchable syntax
compatibility for Py 2.2-3000. So by
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(1) How far away is Python 3000?
Years away, although not that many years. Three? Four?
Try 1 1/2. Guido hopes to release 3.0a1 next January and 3.0 final a year
after.
(2) Will there be automated tools for
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:16:27 -0700, beliavsky wrote:
The current beta version of Python is 2.5 . How can a Python programmer
minimize the number of changes that will be needed to run his code in
Python 3000? In general, he should know what is being removed from
Python
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current beta version of Python is 2.5 . How can a Python programmer
minimize the number of changes that will be needed to run his code in
Python 3000?
by ignoring it, until it exists.
And why not ignoring it,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current beta version of Python is 2.5 . How can a Python
programmer minimize the number of changes that will be needed to run
his code in Python 3000?
Since we don't know what Python 3000 will look like yet (it's still in very
early development), that
The current beta version of Python is 2.5 . How can a Python
programmer minimize the number of changes that will be needed to run
his code in Python 3000?
Since we don't know what Python 3000 will look like yet (it's still in very
early development), that is a question that can't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrito:
At http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/davidmertz David
Mertz writes
Presumably with 2.7 (and later 2.x versions), there will be a means of
warning developers of constructs that are likely to cause porting
issues [to Python 3000]. In the simplest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current beta version of Python is 2.5 . How can a Python programmer
minimize the number of changes that will be needed to run his code in
Python 3000? In general, he should know what is being removed from
Python 3000 and if possible use the modern analogs in
André wrote:
When it comes to *teaching/learning* Python, it makes much more sense
to have print() as a function (same with exec) given what it does
-compared with the purpose of the other keywords.
that's rubbish, of course, and seems to assume that python students, in
general, are obsessed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current beta version of Python is 2.5 . How can a Python programmer
minimize the number of changes that will be needed to run his code in
Python 3000?
by ignoring it, until it exists.
/F
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
André wrote:
When it comes to *teaching/learning* Python, it makes much more sense
to have print() as a function (same with exec) given what it does
-compared with the purpose of the other keywords.
that's rubbish, of course, and seems to assume that python
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some basic syntax such as
print hello world
is going away to make print look like a function. IMO, fixing what is
not broken because of the aesthetic tastes of the BDFL is a bad idea.
His reasoning is at
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:16:27 -0700, beliavsky wrote:
The current beta version of Python is 2.5 . How can a Python programmer
minimize the number of changes that will be needed to run his code in
Python 3000? In general, he should know what is being removed from
Python 3000 and if possible use
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current beta version of Python is 2.5 . How can a Python programmer
minimize the number of changes that will be needed to run his code in
Python 3000?
by ignoring it, until it exists.
/F
And why not ignoring it, when it comes to
14 matches
Mail list logo
