Alf P. Steinbach, 13.01.2010 06:39:
* Steven D'Aprano:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:42:28 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
It is hopeless, especially for a newbie, to create correct Python
2.x+3.x compatible code, except totally trivial stuff of course.
So you allege, but André points out that there are existing,
non-trivial applications that work unmodified under both Python 2.x
and 3.x. For example, CherryPy:
http://www.cherrypy.org/wiki/WhatsNewIn32
You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, but not your own
reality, and the reality is that it is NOT "hopeless" to write correct
Python code that operates under both 2.6 and 3.x. It's not hopeless
because it's been done. You might even be able to target versions
older than 2.6 if you really work at it, as CherryPy does.
Continuing to assert something which is demonstrably untrue simply
means you lose credibility among those who are familiar with Python.
You're confusing the existence of special cases where something has been
done, at great cost, with a belief that it's practical to do so in general.
Unless you can prove that it's *not* practical in general, you will have to
live with the fact that it was, and continues to be, practical for existing
code bases (and certainly for new code), so it clearly is not hopeless to
do so, not even "in general".
Stefan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
