On Jun 27, 7:46 pm, MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote: > Stephen Hansen wrote: > > On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote: > >> Terry Reedy wrote: > >>> Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the > >>> consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn > >>> and the interpreter increasingly difficult to maintain with > >>> volunteers. I think 2.7 is far enough in that direction. > > >> [snip] > >> It's clear that Guido's time machine is limited in how far it can travel > >> in time, because if it wasn't then Python 1 would've been more like > >> Python 3 and the changes would not have been necessary! :-) > > > I'm pretty sure he wrote the Time Machine in Python 1.4, or maybe 1.3? > > Either way, its well established that a time machine can't go back in > > time any farther then the moment its created. > > > I don't at all remember why, don't even vaguely understand the physics > > behind it, but Morgan Freeman said it on TV, so its true. > > That's if the time machines uses a wormhole: > > >>> import wormhole > > Unfortunately it's not part of the standard library. :-( > > > So he couldn't go back and fix 1.0, physics won't allow him. So we're > > stuck with the Py3k break. :) > >
planned obselence.. It would be nice if a pause was taken at 3.5 and a huge number of libraries were made available for 3.5.. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
