Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #64645 > unrolled thread

Re: The potential for a Python 2.8.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-23 19:42 -0500
    Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-01-24 01:33 -0800
      Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 15:04 +0000

#64645 — Re: The potential for a Python 2.8.

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 
"Python 2.8 will happen. But that is a big if, and it certainly isn’t 
"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 
"Python 2.8. It will have to be released under another name, though, 
"but should “Psnakes 2.8″ 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 
already more successful than my first Python, 1.3, was. Python 3 is the 
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. 
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.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#64670

Le vendredi 24 janvier 2014 01:42:41 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 

Three days of discussion on how to make the next release
more "ascii" compatible.

I put "ascii" in quotes, because the efforts to define
"ascii" were more laughable.

jmf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64687

On 24/01/2014 09:33, wxjmfauth@gmail.com wrote:

[double spacing snipped for the 10**infinity time]

> Le vendredi 24 janvier 2014 01:42:41 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> Three days of discussion on how to make the next release
> more "ascii" compatible.
>
> I put "ascii" in quotes, because the efforts to define
> "ascii" were more laughable.
>
> jmf
>

Oh dear of dear, looks as if another bad batch has been sold, please 
change your dealer immediately.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web