On 2/27/2012 4:10 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 21:07 +0000, Paul Moore wrote:
On 27 February 2012 20:39, Chris McDonough<chrism@plope.com> wrote:
Note that u'' literals are sort of the tip of the iceberg here; supporting them will obviously not make development under the subset an order of magnitude less sucky, just a tiny little bit less sucky. There are other extremely annoying things, like str(bytes) returning the repr of a bytestring on Python 3. That's almost as irritating as the absence of u'' literals, but we have to evaluate one thing at a time.
So. Am I misunderstanding here, or are you suggesting that this particular PEP doesn't help you much, but if it's accepted, it represents "the thin end of the wedge" for a series of subsequent PEPs suggesting fixes for a number of other "extremely annoying things"...?
Last December, Armin wrote "And in my absolutely personal opinion Python 3.3/3.4 should be more like Python 2* and Python 2.8 should happen and be a bit more like Python 3." * he wrote '3' but obviously means '2'. http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/12/7/thoughts-on-python3/
I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's certainly what it sounded like to me!
I'm way too lazy. The political wrangling is just too draining (especially over something so trivial).
Turning Python 3 back into Python 2, or even moving in that direction, is neither 'trivial' nor a 'no-brainer'.
But I will definitely support other proposals that make it easier to straddle, sure.
-- Terry Jan Reedy