Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.006 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'python,': 0.02; 'subject:Python': 0.06; "'no": 0.09; "'python": 0.09; 'escape': 0.09; 'global,': 0.09; 'happen.': 0.09; 'happen?': 0.09; 'if,': 0.09; 'lawrence': 0.09; 'paragraph,': 0.09; 'pep': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'python': 0.11; 'jan': 0.12; '"but': 0.16; '"does': 0.16; '"python': 0.16; 'formally': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'obviously': 0.18; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'certainly': 0.24; 'unicode': 0.24; 'visible': 0.24; 'decide': 0.24; 'developers': 0.25; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'idea': 0.28; 'announcement': 0.30; 'that.': 0.31; 'end,': 0.31; 'another': 0.32; 'text': 0.33; 'bugs': 0.33; 'development.': 0.33; '"the': 0.34; 'core': 0.34; 'agree': 0.35; 'except': 0.35; 'no,': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'should': 0.36; 'massive': 0.38; 'others.': 0.38; 'somebody': 0.38; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'url:01': 0.39; 'though,': 0.39; 'sure': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'even': 0.60; 'future': 0.60; 'anytime': 0.60; 'impact': 0.61; 'world.': 0.61; 'received:173': 0.61; 'first': 0.61; 'kind': 0.63; 'happen': 0.63; 'subject:The': 0.64; 'become': 0.64; 'more': 0.64; 'success,': 0.65; 'biggest': 0.67; 'believe': 0.68; 'fact,': 0.69; 'soon.': 0.71; 'url:wordpress': 0.78; '"going': 0.84; '2.8': 0.84; '2.8.': 0.84; 'forks': 0.84; 'received:fios.verizon.net': 0.84; 'url:2014': 0.84; 'url:23': 0.91 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Terry Reedy Subject: Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:42:41 -0500 References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-173-75-254-207.phlapa.fios.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 48 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1390524174 news.xs4all.nl 2881 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:58670 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:64645 On 1/23/2014 4:57 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > http://regebro.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/the-potential-for-a-python-2-8/= > > I pretty much agree with the author. Except for one paragraph, which I consider a disservice to readers. "Does that mean a Python 2.8 can not happen? No, it can. If the Python "core developers decide that Python 3 was a dead end, then obviously a=20 "Python 2.8 will happen. But that is a big if, and it certainly isn=E2=80= =99t=20 "going to happen anytime soon. This will never happen. Python 3 is the escape from several dead-ends in = Python 2. The biggest in impact is the use of un-accented latin chars as = text in a global, unicode world. "The other way it can happen if somebody forks Python 2, and makes a=20 "Python 2.8. It will have to be released under another name, though,=20 "but should =E2=80=9CPsnakes 2.8=E2=80=B3 become a big success, this may = also change "the core developers minds. Not mine, and I am sure many if not all others. I believe Python 3 is=20 already more successful than my first Python, 1.3, was. Python 3 is the=20 bugfix for several design bugs in Python 1 and 2. The idea that we would = we *ever* unfix those bugs is ludicrous. > In fact, the sooner this whole > ludicrous idea of Python 2.8 has been buried under a massive avalanche > or cremated in a sizeable volcano, then the better for the future of > Python development. Burying 'Python 2.8' was the purpose of PEP 404. It is kind of bizarre.=20 Developers informally said 'No 2.8'. People would not believe that. So=20 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=20 still do not want to believe it. --=20 Terry Jan Reedy