On May 29, 2:28 pm, Jason Tackaberry <t...@urandom.ca> wrote: > On 11-05-29 04:06 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: > > > I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean > > condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that > > you tossed out as a joke. > > As a casual lurker reading this thread, I believe he is equating > "completely incompatible" with "not completely compatible." At least, > his arguments make more sense if I read him as arguing from the "not > completely compatible" position. It's possible he is intentionally > equivocating for dramatic effect. > > But they are different -- both connotatively and denotatively -- and to > argue against the claim that Python 2 and 3 are "completely > incompatible" it seems to me sufficient to provide a single non-trivial > counter-example, which Steven has already done.
Python 2.x and Pythin 3.x are two different dialects just like Humans (Python 3.x) and Chimpanzees (Python 2.x) are similar (compatible) but very different versions of talking apes (languages). Sure humans (Python 3.x) and chimps (Python 2.x) share some similarities (much more than say humans (Python3.x) and fish (Lisp) do) however there are many incompatible differences. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
