Aaron Watters wrote: > stuff out there you can get so easily -- all the stuff that py3k > will break -- most of which won't get ported -- and if it does can > we be sure it will be tested properly? No, probably you will end > up beta testing someone's quick port of what used to be rock > solid code... This was quite rightly pointed out to me, and > I had to agree that it was a pretty good point.
Do you mean Ruby's track in providing backward compatibility is better than Python's? Googling for that a bit, I would reckon otherwise. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
