No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and then a 3.1 whatever.
I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that worried. What's your point? I just like want to write a program that will stay working. And maybe I can go on with something else hopefully than just compatibility fixes. They take some work afterall. It seems hard with Python. Esp. 2 -> 3 Sverker On Apr 15, 5:41 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:38:56 -0300, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > escribió: > > > > > On Apr 15, 3:50 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:02:38 -0300, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> escribió: > > >> > I tried out py3k on my project,http://guppy-pe.sf.net > > >> And what happened? > >> I've seen that your project already supports Python 2.6 so the migration > >> path to 3.0 should be easy. > > > 2.6 was no big deal, It was an annoyance that they had to make 'as' a > > reserved word. Annoyances were also with 2.4, and 2.5. No big > > problems, I could make guppy backwards compatible to 2.3. But that > > seems not to be possible with Python 3.x ... it is a MUCH bigger > > change. And it would require a fork of the code bases, in C, Guido has > > written tha or to sprinkle with #ifdefs. Would not happen soon for me. > > It takes some work anyways. Do you volunteer, Guido van Rossum? :-) > > > It's not exactly easy. Perhaps not very hard anyways. But think of > > 1000's of such projects. How many do you think there are? I think > > many. How many do yo think care? I think few. > > > When it has been the fuzz with versions before, then I could have the > > same code still work with older versions. But now it seems I have to > > fork TWO codes. It's becoming too much. Think of the time you could > > write a program in C or even C++ and then it'll work. How do you think > > eg writers of bash or other unix utilities come along. Do they have to > > rewrite their code each year? No, it stays. And they can be happy > > about that, and go on to other things. Why should I have to think > > about staying compatible with the newest fancy Python all the time? NO > > -- but the answer may be, they don't care, though the others (C/C++, > > as they rely on) do. :-( > > You can stay with Python 2.6 and not support 3.0; nobody will force you to > use it. And nobody will come and wipe out your Python installation, be it > 2.6, 2.1 or whatever. And if you still enjoy using Python 1.5, please keep > using it - it won't disappear the day after 3.0 becomes available. > > Regarding the C language: yes, souce code *had* to be modified for newer > versions of the language and/or compiler. See by example, the new > "restrict" keyword in C99, or the boolean names. The C guys are much more > concerned about backwards compatibility than Python, but they can't > guarantee that (at risk of freezing the language). The 3.0 > incompatibilities are all justified, anyway, and Python is changing (as a > language) much more than C - and that's a good thing. > > There is a strategy to migrate from 2.x to 3.0, including the 2to3 tool. > Have you used it? > > -- > Gabriel Genellina -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
