On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 1, 12:47 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > En Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:57:55 -0300, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > > > > > On Mar 31, 1:36 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > >> Don't be scared by the "backwards incompatible" tag - it's the way to > > >> get > > >> rid of nasty things that could not be dropped otherwise. > > > > > I would consider breaking production code to be "nasty" as well. > > > > > Please explain how the existence of Python 3.0 would break your production > > code. > > The existence of battery acid won't hurt me either, unless I come into > contact with it. If one eventually upgrades to 3.0 -- which is > ostensibly the desired path -- their code could break and require > fixing.
And how would this happen? I dont know of any good software distribution that upgrades a component to another major revision without asking first. The desired path is that, if somene wants to port his software to Python 3.0, that he follow the migration plan. Final users will install Python 3.0 as python3.0 anyway, with Python 2.x as default 'python' binary. > Backward compatibility is important. C++ could break all ties with C > to "clean up" as well, but it would be a braindead move that would > break existing code bases upon upgrade. > C++ is not C. No one "upgrades" from C to C++. -- Eduardo de Oliveira Padoan http://www.advogato.org/person/eopadoan/ Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/edcrypt -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
