Hi All, I'd like to start a discussion to see whether it's time for scipy to require Python 2.4. 2.4 has been out for over two years now (released in Nov 2004) and there is at least one outstanding patch for scipy which requires 2.4[1]. AFAIK there are no major distributions for which 2.3 is the default version. What do other people think? Are there any plans to make 2.4 a requirement in the near future? Are there many people who still use 2.3? Is this something that might be considered for the next release? Cheers, Tim [1] http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/scipy/ticket/196
Tim Leslie wrote:
Hi All,
I'd like to start a discussion to see whether it's time for scipy to require Python 2.4. 2.4 has been out for over two years now (released in Nov 2004) and there is at least one outstanding patch for scipy which requires 2.4[1]. AFAIK there are no major distributions for which 2.3 is the default version.
Debian stable and OS X are still major distributions, in my mind.
What do other people think? Are there any plans to make 2.4 a requirement in the near future? Are there many people who still use 2.3? Is this something that might be considered for the next release?
Yes, I think, many people still use Python 2.3. As for the patch, there's nothing intrinsic to Python 2.4 that it requires. It simply takes advantage of Python 2.4 syntax sugar; it does not have to do so. IMO, widely-used libraries should continue to support Python distributions until there is a really compelling new feature that cannot be implemented in the old versions and that we should not drop support for old versions just because they are old. Most of the "missing features" that I encountered while targeting Python 2.3 were set(), generator expressions, and decorators. All of them are very easily worked around in 2.3. So my question to you is, specifically what features are only in 2.4 that you think we need to use to support new features in scipy? -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
On 12/27/06, Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:
Tim Leslie wrote:
Hi All,
I'd like to start a discussion to see whether it's time for scipy to require Python 2.4. 2.4 has been out for over two years now (released in Nov 2004) and there is at least one outstanding patch for scipy which requires 2.4[1]. AFAIK there are no major distributions for which 2.3 is the default version.
Debian stable and OS X are still major distributions, in my mind.
My bad, I probably should have said "easily available" rather than "default version".
What do other people think? Are there any plans to make 2.4 a requirement in the near future? Are there many people who still use 2.3? Is this something that might be considered for the next release?
Yes, I think, many people still use Python 2.3. As for the patch, there's nothing intrinsic to Python 2.4 that it requires. It simply takes advantage of Python 2.4 syntax sugar; it does not have to do so.
This is true.
IMO, widely-used libraries should continue to support Python distributions until there is a really compelling new feature that cannot be implemented in the old versions and that we should not drop support for old versions just because they are old. Most of the "missing features" that I encountered while targeting Python 2.3 were set(), generator expressions, and decorators. All of them are very easily worked around in 2.3.
So my question to you is, specifically what features are only in 2.4 that you think we need to use to support new features in scipy?
There are none in particular, I just wanted to test the water and see what the status on this issue was. The ticket posted was merely the catalyst for enquiry. If the benefits of the new features aren't considered enough to warrant a change then I'm happy for us to stick with 2.3. I'd like to hear where other people stand on this issue and perhaps see what criteria would be sufficient to require an update in the required python version. Thanks for your input on this Robert. Cheers, Tim
-- Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ Scipy-dev mailing list Scipy-dev@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
Our institute's servers all have Python 2.3 installed. At the moment it is not real to persuade admins to upgrade (and upgrade is indeed difficult as you need to bother a lot of users which have processes running). So personally I would very much like to see SciPy continuing to work on 2.3. Denis On 12/27/06, Tim Leslie <tim.leslie@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I'd like to start a discussion to see whether it's time for scipy to require Python 2.4. 2.4 has been out for over two years now (released in Nov 2004) and there is at least one outstanding patch for scipy which requires 2.4[1]. AFAIK there are no major distributions for which 2.3 is the default version.
What do other people think? Are there any plans to make 2.4 a requirement in the near future? Are there many people who still use 2.3? Is this something that might be considered for the next release?
Cheers,
Tim
participants (3)
-
Denis Simakov -
Robert Kern -
Tim Leslie