[Ironpython-users] Fwd: Item 34263 in 2.7.5?

[Pawel Jasinski]

Sorry, it happens to me all the time, I reply to person and forget
about mailing list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pawel Jasinski <pawel.jasinski at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Ironpython-users] Item 34263 in 2.7.5?
To: "Vernon D. Cole" <vernondcole at gmail.com>


I agree with Vernon.
My typical use case is python.org docs. For ironpython 2.7, I select
2.7 for 3.0, hm ... 3.0, 3.4 or 3.5?
Why do we need to break it? What is the benefit?

--pawel

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Vernon D. Cole <vernondcole at gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 on version number 3.0.
>
> Just last week I was in a complete panic when I discovered that the version
> of Python embedded in moneydance was "Jython 2.0".  After some frantic
> searching, I discovered that Jython 2.0 implements Python 2.5.  Their
> current beta is numbered 2.7b1 because of such confusion.
>
> I also seem to remember many emails and other explanations about "IronPython
> version 2.0 implements the Python 2.5 specification" so that the next
> version of IronPython was numbered to match the language spec.   That is a
> good tradition to keep.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Jeff Hardy <jdhardy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Vernon D. Cole <vernondcole at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I think that would be version 3.3 (or will it be 3.4?) which will be the
>> > next "major" release. (Since there will never be a version of Python 2
>> > higher than "2.7" all 2.x releases henceforth will be "point" releases.
>> >   Let me hasten to point out that, since the unicode vs string vs bytes
>> > issue in Python 3 is well defined, the transition to IronPython 3 ought
>> > to
>> > be painless.  Many of the incompatibilities between IronPython and
>> > CPython
>> > will just go away. Since we will skip ["3.0", "3.1", "3.2"] we will
>> > never
>> > have to remove the u"unicode string marker", which was the biggest pain
>> > in
>> > writing runs-on-either version code.  2.7 <-> 3.3 is easy.
>>
>> Yeah, this change won't happen until IronPython 3. I'm also going to
>> take the opportunity to break from the convention of matching CPython
>> versions and just call it 3.0, even though it will have everything up
>> to 3.4 in it. PEP 421 (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0421/) has
>> the mechanism to make this work.
>>
>> And yes, my hope is that moving to 3 will be much less problematic for
>> IronPython than it is for CPython. Other than a few things (like
>> changing the default Frames setting) there shouldn't be too many
>> breaking changes.
>>
>> - Jeff
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironpython-users mailing list
> Ironpython-users at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/ironpython-users
>