A.M. Kuchling wrote:

...

The thread about bytes() is about a Python 3.0 feature. Guido's presentations have mentioned various changes he'd like to make in 3.0, but there's no master list of things that would change.

I think it would be useful to have such a list, because it would focus our language development effort on ones that are steps to 3.0, and maybe people can invent ways to smooth the transition. I've started a list in the Wiki at http://www.python.org/moin/Python3.0 , but should it be a PEP? (PEP 3000, perhaps?)

Good idea to start collecting all this. I'm currently too busy to spend a lot of time thinking about all this, but eventually I will be back and then it would be nice to find a list of things I said in the past. :-)

I say a PEP. While it can say that these features are just possibilities, I would rather have a controlled place to list this stuff so it is a little more official than having someone randomly come in and start throwing in everything they wished Python 3.0 will have.

Right, but the Wiki is a good start while you consider a PEP.

When it is decided where all of this info will end up I will go through the python-dev Summaries and see if I can find anything there (tried to make it a habit to doc stuff that Guido said would be a Python 3.0 feature.

There is also another wiki page on Python 3.0 at http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/moinmoin/PythonThreeDotOh .

Hrm. That is mostly Mike McLay's wish list; best to ignore it.

I also have an initial list going. At PyCON Michael McLay and I discussed getting a PEP written in hopes of getting grant funding from outside sources (read: not the PSF) to implement some of the features. And we figured a PEP was probably as official as we could get short of a specific grant proposal and thus be more acceptable to people considering providing funds.

A PEP along the lines of Mike's Wiki page doesn't really have my support. It's a long story that I'll have to save for another time, but basically it seems to me that Mike's agenda is driven by the need of a very specific subcommunity. That's fine, but let's be clear about what it is -- it's not my idea for Python 3000. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

As a point of interest, are Python 3.0 and Python 3000 actually the same thing?

In my mind, yes.

Python 3000 is clearly some hypothetical version at some unspecified time in the future, which may or may not ever exist. But at the rate version numbers are going, we're going to actually get to 3.0 before very long. So, when we talk about 3.0, are we talking about a wish version or a real version?

Actually, with one minor version number bump per 12-18 months, we should have at least 5 years before we're at 2.9. So I think we can continue to equate 3.0 and 3000. It would be nice PR to actually call it "Python 3000" rather than "Python 3.0" when it comes out -- showing we can play the marketing game as well as anybody without losing our sense of humor. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Greg Ewing wrote:

As a point of interest, are Python 3.0 and Python 3000 actually the same thing? Python 3000 is clearly some hypothetical version at some unspecified time in the future, which may or may not ever exist. But at the rate version numbers are going, we're going to actually get to 3.0 before very long.

I can't see that :-) After 2.9, we get 2.10, then 2.11. After 2.99, we get 2.100, then 2.101. At that rate, we won't reach 3.0 before that heath death (sp?) of the universe. Regards, Martin

...

...

...

...

"Dennis" == Dennis Allison writes:

Dennis> Ahhhh... Zeno's paradox again. Nah, you're thinking of Archimedes's "Sand Reckoner". -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.