Apr. 15th, 2014

import_that: 2.8 inside a red circle with a line crossing it out (no-python2.8)
There's yet another call for Python 2.8, or at least for discussion for 2.8. Martijn Faassen discusses what Python 2.8 should be, even though it won't be. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure what motivates Martijn to write this post — he seems to have accepted that there won't be a Python 2.8 and isn't asking for that decision to be rethought., so I'm not entirely sure why he wants to discuss 2.8, but let's treat this as a serious suggestion.

Martijn suggests that, paradoxically, the best way to handle the Python 2.x to 3.x transition is for 2.8 to break backwards compatibility with 2.7. I thought we had that version. Isn't it called Python 3.x? Not according to Martijn, who wants to add — or rather since he explicitly says he won't be doing the work, he wants somebody else to add — a whole series of extra compiler options in the form of from __future3__ and from __past__ imports. Like __future__, they will presumably behave like compiler directives and change the behaviour of Python.
Read more... )

Profile

import_that: XKCD guy flying with Python (Default)
Steven D'Aprano

May 2015

S M T W T F S
     12
345678 9
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags