On Jan 3, 3:38 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 27 2011, 8:01 pm, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > But I consider it a reasonable change for a > > 'python 4', or whatever the next major version change will be called. > > You do realise there were 8 years between 2 & 3? You might be waiting > for quite some time.
Yes, I realize this discussion is quite theoretical in nature. Some of the more 'emotionally engaged' participants might do well to keep that in mind as well. > Conversely, you could pitch in behind Rick Johnson's Python 4000 fork, > I sure it's progressing nicely given how long Rick has been talking it > up. Would you be so kind as to leave your personal feuds at the door? > > Writing a code-conversion tool to convert from *args to args::tuple > > would be quite easy indeed. > > You might want to ask people maintaining libraries in both 2.x & 3.x > via 2to3 just how well that's working out for them. If the impact of > changes was trivially obvious, the programming landscape would look > very different indeed. Of course if a conversion tool falters on even a single construct, automated conversion is not going to be reliable, and thats going to be a pain. But whatever python 4 will be like, its not going to be backwards compatible by definition; and at least I dont think this proposed change will contribute to the trouble of conversion between the two. It is really quite a superficial syntax tweak. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
