In article <mailman.5926.1390529147.18130.python-l...@python.org>, MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-24 01:00, Chris Angelico wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > >> Burying 'Python 2.8' was the purpose of PEP 404. It is kind of bizarre. > >> Developers informally said 'No 2.8'. People would not believe that. So > >> developers formally said 'No 2.8'. They even inverted the purpose of PEP to > >> make the formal announcement visible and permanent. And a few people still > >> do not want to believe it. > > > > Can I get a new version of Java 1.1.8 please? I want it to include all > > the cool features that I want from the newer versions, but it has to > > still run all my existing code. I'm not going to put in any effort to > > actually _make_ this, I want you to do it for me. > > > > Actually, the Java versioning system was enough of a mess that, to > > this day, I don't know what version(s) my old Java code would and > > wouldn't run on. So glad to have moved away from that. At least with > > Python, semantic versioning [1] means everyone knows what everyone's > > talking about. Python 2.8 has to be broadly compatible with 2.7 and > > doesn't have to be compatible with 3.3. (Which, incidentally, is at > > odds with some people's idea of a 2.8, which would be incompatible > > with both. I'm not sure what that would be called - e.1? sqrt(8).0? > > Something else?) > > > [snip] > Python 2.8j? You're imagining things. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
