On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:30:39 +0000, Curt wrote:
> On 2012-04-15, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Didn't you trim his reasons, speaking of trimming (maybe they were
> nonsensical, or poor, but it seems they were there before you made them
> disappear)?
No, you remember wrongly. Bryan states that the use of the same file
extension is a gotcha, but that's it.
[quote]
Python 3(K) likes to use the same '.py' file extension as
its incompatible predecessors
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-April/1290909.html
Python 3 uses the same file extension as its incompatible predecessors
for the same reason that Python 2.6 uses the same file extension as its
incompatible predecessors, and 2.5 as as its incompatible predecessors,
and so on all the way back.
"Incompatible" is not a binary state, it is a matter of degree. Python
3.1 is less compatible to Python 2.7 than 2.7 is to 2.6, but the vast
bulk of the language is still identical and code supporting everything
from 2.5 to 3.2 in one code base is possible.
In my experience, it is MUCH easier to write code targeting versions 2.5
through 3.2 than it is to target 2.4 and 2.5 only, on account of how
impoverished 2.4 is compared to 2.5. (I once started a project to
backport useful 2.5 features to 2.4. I gave up because it was just too
painful.)
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
