Tim Peters wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a list of expected incompatibilities with Python 2.3?
No.
PEP 3000 doesn't count?
Actually, PEP 3000 should be taken with a (large) grain of salt, since it's only
updated somewhat irregularly - but it's the closest thing I know of to a
proposed feature
Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:38:49 -0500:
> ...
> > Are serious Python programmers already taking care to avoid
> > using Python features that may disappear in Python 3000?
>
> No, although some naturally avoid dubious features without being
> threatened .
Are there
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:44:03 -0500, rumours say that Steve Holden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have written:
>Brad Tilley wrote:
>> How about 'import classic'
>
>... or
>
>from __past__ import __mistakes__
I'll drink to that!
>looking-forwards-to-christmas-ly y'rs - steve
In the PSU HQ everyday
Dave Benjamin schrieb:
LOL! Better yet:
import __past__
del __past__.__mistakes__
Boy, what a load off!
Merry Christmas in advance,
from __future__ import NewYear
A Happy New Year to everybody!
;)
--
---
Peter Maas, M+R Infosysteme,
Dave Benjamin wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
from __past__ import __mistakes__
LOL! Better yet:
import __past__
del __past__.__mistakes__
You can't change the past, as everyone knows, so
the names in that module are constants, like None
is in Python 2.4.
It's better simply not to spend time looking at
Steve Holden wrote:
Brad Tilley wrote:
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Anyway, what's to worry about?When the time comes just whip out a
little script that converts Python 1.6 (or whatever you like) to
Python3K; it will only take seven lines of P3K code.
How about 'import classic'
... or
from __past__
Brad Tilley wrote:
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Anyway, what's to worry about?When the time comes just whip out a
little script that converts Python 1.6 (or whatever you like) to
Python3K; it will only take seven lines of P3K code.
How about 'import classic'
from past import python23
:-)
--
Gustavo Có
Brad Tilley wrote:
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Anyway, what's to worry about?When the time comes just whip out a
little script that converts Python 1.6 (or whatever you like) to
Python3K; it will only take seven lines of P3K code.
How about 'import classic'
... or
from __past__ import __mistakes__
l
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Anyway, what's to worry about?When the time comes just whip out a little
script that converts Python 1.6 (or whatever you like) to Python3K; it will
only take seven lines of P3K code.
How about 'import classic'
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Anyway, what's to worry about?When the time comes just whip out a little
script that converts Python 1.6 (or whatever you like) to Python3K; it will
only take seven lines of P3K code.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I just came across the slides for Guido van Rossum's "Python
> Regrets" talk, given in 2002. It worries me that much of my Python
> code would be broken if all of his ideas were implemented.
Actually, none of it would break, provided you don't change the Python
implementation y
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just came across the slides for Guido van Rossum's "Python Regrets"
talk, given in 2002. It worries me that much of my Python code would
be broken if all of his ideas were implemented. He doesn't even like
'print'. Of course, I am not qualified to argue with Van Rossum ab
I just came across the slides for Guido van Rossum's "Python Regrets"
talk, given in 2002. It worries me that much of my Python code would
be broken if all of his ideas were implemented. He doesn't even like
'print'. Of course, I am not qualified to argue with Van Rossum about
the direction of Pyth
13 matches
Mail list logo
