[Python-3000] After 2.6 should be 3.0

[Josiah Carlson]

"Guido van Rossum" <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On 4/19/06, Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu> wrote:
> > Personally, I see Py3k as a vetting mechanism for all those hair-brained
> > ideas that really shouldn't make it into any Python version (3k or
> > otherwise),
> 
> Huh? Why should Py3k be relevant to ideas that shouldn't go in either way?

I was thinking in terms of the Py3k development process.  This list,
early test versions of Py3k (presumably there will be a release of py3k
prior to 2008), etc.


> > with the possible inclusion of things that *should* make
> > life better for Python users.  With that said, aside from the stdlib
> > reorganization (which should happen in the 2.x series anyways), so far I
> > haven't seen anything that necessitates backwards incompatible changes
> > to Python 3k, and I predict that many of the changes to py3k will be
> > included into mainline 2.x during 3k's development.
> 
> Then you haven't been paying attention. keys() returning a set view is
> incompatible. A new I/O stack is incompatible. All-Unicode strings are
> incompatible. Etc.

It seems you are right (I was paying attention, but apparently to the
wrong stuff); after going through most of the py3k list history, those
changes that would have been backwards compatible were basically
rejected. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that all proposed
changes will necessarily be so.

 - Josiah