<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/12/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mike Orr</b> <<a href="mailto:sluggoster@gmail.com">sluggoster@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 1/12/07, <a href="mailto:glyph@divmod.com">glyph@divmod.com</a> <<a href="mailto:glyph@divmod.com">glyph@divmod.com</a>> wrote:<br>> The benefit (to me, and to many others) of 3.x over 2.x is the promise of<br>
> more future maintenance, not the lack of cruft.<br><br>The benefit (to me, and to many others) of 3.x over 2.x is the promise<br>of getting rid of cruft.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
If we're going to re-add cruft for the sake of temporary<br>compatibility, we may as well just stick with 2.x. You have to take a<br>quantum leap sometimes or you end up working around the same old<br>mistakes.</blockquote>
<div><br>There seems to be rather a lot of confusion. No one is suggesting Python 3.0 be anything less for the sake of backward compatibility. Instead, it has been suggested Python 2.6 (and possibly 2.7) be something *more* in order to provide for an easier upgrade path. No compromises in Python
3.0.<br></div></div><br>-- <br>Thomas Wouters <<a href="mailto:thomas@python.org">thomas@python.org</a>><br><br>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!