Grant Edwards wrote:
> I do
> remember delaying moving from 1.5.2 -> 2.0 until I really had to, but
> I don't remember why.
I remember delaying moving from 1.5 until 2.3, but I remember why. Three
reasons:
(1) People are often like cats, and like cats, they are either curious and
inquisitive abo
Skip Montanaro writes:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Grant Edwards
> wrote:
>> I'm probably conflating the 1.5.2/2.0 and the 2.6 stuff. I do
>> remember delaying moving from 1.5.2 -> 2.0 until I really had to, but
>> I don't remember why.
>
> If you were a RedHat user during that timefram
On 2014-08-19, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Grant Edwards
> wrote:
>> I'm probably conflating the 1.5.2/2.0 and the 2.6 stuff. I do
>> remember delaying moving from 1.5.2 -> 2.0 until I really had to, but
>> I don't remember why.
>
> If you were a RedHat user during
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I'm probably conflating the 1.5.2/2.0 and the 2.6 stuff. I do
> remember delaying moving from 1.5.2 -> 2.0 until I really had to, but
> I don't remember why.
If you were a RedHat user during that timeframe, that might have
contributed to yo
On 2014-08-19, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> On 2014-08-18, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>> On 08/18/2014 07:51 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
To all of us out here in user-land a change in the first value in the
version tuple means breakage and incompatibilities. And when t
Ben Finney wrote:
> Grant Edwards writes:
>
>> I agree with the comments that the appellation for "simply the next
>> version after 3.9" should be 3.10 and not 4.0. Everybody I know
>> considers SW versions numbers to be dot-separated tuples, not floating
>> point numbers.
>
> This consensus is
On 19 August 2014 00:51, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-08-17, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> > A blog from Nick Coghlan
> > http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html that
> > should help put a few minds to rest.
>
> I agree with the comments that the appellation for "simply the ne
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I consider versions to be *strings*. They include non-numeric components
> such as "a", "b", "rc", so they aren't numbers. They're certainly not
> floating point numbers, since they have a variable number of decimal
> points. Although ther
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-08-18, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> On 08/18/2014 07:51 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>> To all of us out here in user-land a change in the first value in the
>>> version tuple means breakage and incompatibilities. And when the
>>> second value is "0", you avoid it until
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-08-17, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> A blog from Nick Coghlan
>> http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html that
>> should help put a few minds to rest.
>
> I agree with the comments that the appellation for "simply the next
> version after 3.9" shou
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, ElChino wrote:
> Or lets make the version asymptotically grow towards 4.
> Any sensible function for that?
Easy! We just keep on adding parts.
3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.9.9, 3.9.9.9, 3.9.9.9.9, 3.9.9.9.9.9...
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-lis
Grant Edwards writes:
> I agree with the comments that the appellation for "simply the next
> version after 3.9" should be 3.10 and not 4.0. Everybody I know
> considers SW versions numbers to be dot-separated tuples, not floating
> point numbers.
This consensus is sometimes termed “semantic ver
On 8/18/2014 2:09 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-18, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 08/18/2014 07:51 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
To all of us out here in user-land a change in the first value in the
version tuple means breakage and incompatibilities. And when the
second value is "0", you avoid it u
On 2014-08-18, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 08/18/2014 07:51 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>> To all of us out here in user-land a change in the first value in the
>> version tuple means breakage and incompatibilities. And when the
>> second value is "0", you avoid it until some other sucker has found
>
On 08/18/2014 10:00 AM, ElChino wrote:
"Grant Edwards" wrote:
To all of us out here in user-land a change in the first value in the
version tuple means breakage and incompatibilities. And when the
second value is "0", you avoid it until some other sucker has found
the bugs and a few more minor
On 08/18/2014 07:51 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
To all of us out here in user-land a change in the first value in the
version tuple means breakage and incompatibilities. And when the
second value is "0", you avoid it until some other sucker has found
the bugs and a few more minor releases have come
"Grant Edwards" wrote:
To all of us out here in user-land a change in the first value in the
version tuple means breakage and incompatibilities. And when the
second value is "0", you avoid it until some other sucker has found
the bugs and a few more minor releases have come out.
"Three shall
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I agree with the comments that the appellation for "simply the next
> version after 3.9" should be 3.10 and not 4.0. Everybody I know
> considers SW versions numbers to be dot-separated tuples, not
> floating point numbers.
>
Agreed. Howev
On 2014-08-17, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> A blog from Nick Coghlan
> http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html that
> should help put a few minds to rest.
I agree with the comments that the appellation for "simply the next
version after 3.9" should be 3.10 and not 4.0. Everyb
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Redge @ Versalytics.com
wrote:
> Definitely a relief. After delving into Python only a few short months ago,
> everything I was reading suggested 2.x.x. When I switched to another book to
> continue with my studies, some of the code wasn't working ... welcome to
> On Aug 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
> A blog from Nick Coghlan
> http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html that should
> help put a few minds to rest.
>
> --
> My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
> what you can do for o
A blog from Nick Coghlan
http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html that
should help put a few minds to rest.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
22 matches
Mail list logo
