"Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Terry Reedy wrote: >> I think it worth repeating that Python 3 is at yet something of a >> pipedream, as indicated by the joke name Python 3000
> Right, though my understanding of PEP 3000[1] is that though "Python > 3000" may never exist, the PEP is there as a road-map of where Python as > a language would like to go. A major backwards compatibility break will not happen without a major number change to Py3. And I expect it to happen -- the 'as yet' was intentional. In fact, here is my New Year's prediction (with subjective certainty > .5): a. The PyPy project will succeed. b. Python3 (actually, the reference implementation thereof) will be written in Python3 (perhaps with 'draft' in Py2). c. We will see it within 5 years. We will see if I am any better than the tabloid 'psychics'. >I guess the point of my question is to find out if this kind of nice >interaction of *args and iterators is something that's in the road-map. >If it is, then maybe there are parts of it that could be implemented in a >way that's backwards compatible, even if the full system wouldn't be >available for some time. (Perhaps something along the lines of "from >__future__ import iter_args".) You can certainly share your concerns with the PEP author. I believe that there is also a PyWiki page that you can directly add to. Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
