"Paul Moore" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I had picked up on this comment, and I have to say that I had been a little surprised by the resistance to the change based on the "code would break" argument, when you had made such a thorough attempt to address this. Perhaps others had missed this point, though.
I'm also concerned about future usability. Word in the Py3k list is that Python 2.6 will be just about the last Python in the 2.x series, and by directing his implementation at only Python 2.x strings, he's just about guaranteeing obsolescence. By building with unicode and/or objects with a buffer interface in mind, Larry could build with both 2.x and 3.x in mind, and his code wouldn't be obsolete the moment it was released.