On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 02:23:27 -0700, Bryan wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> Bryan wrote: >> > Python 3(K) likes to use the same '.py' file extension as its >> > incompatible predecessors, >> >> And so it should. > > We disagree. Not surprising in a "gotcha's" thread.
Yes, but I have reasons for disagreeing, which you trimmed out of your response. If you have reasons for thinking that a separate file extension for Python 3 is a good idea, you are keeping it to yourself. Python and C are different languages. Python 2 and Python 3 are not, they are the same language with only a few minor dialect differences. There is a practical argument against separate file extensions: which extension do you use for code intended to run with both Python 2 and 3? We didn't need a new file extension for the transition between Python 2.5 (string exceptions are legal) and Python 2.6 (string exceptions cause a SyntaxError exception). Nor did we need a new file extension for the transition between Python 2.1 (nested functions behaved one way) and Python 2.2 (nested functions behaved a different way). We certainly didn't have a new file extension when the bastion or gopher modules were removed from the standard library, backwards-incompatible changes if I've ever seen one. If there's a good argument in favour of separate file extensions for Python 2 and Python 3 (one which doesn't also apply to, say, Python 2.5 and 2.6, or 3.1 and 3.2) I'm afraid I don't know it. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
