No Python 2.0 (was Re: idiom for initial list of lists)

Kirby Urner urner at
Tue Sep 12 00:21:16 CEST 2000

aahz at (Aahz Maruch) wrote:

>In article <vidnrsgrf9e9jar537gk31ivia1jhifcjo at>,
>Kirby Urner  <urner at> wrote:
>>So?  Same features.  By your reasoning we shouldn't have talked
>>about 1.6 all this time either then.
>In point of fact, I raised the exact same issue when 1.6 started getting
>trotted out (in alpha).  And relatively few people have been giving
>1.6-based solutions to the questions on the newsgroup.

Then I think you're having a negative impact on the free
flow of information about all versions, including betas
and alphas.  Selfish of you, IMO, to make this silly rule.

I encourage everyone to ignore the enjoinder to not post
syntax that only pertains to the newest versions of Python
(whether beta or not).

You say it's cruel to do so.  I just laugh, com sa: hahahhahahahhaa.


More information about the Python-list mailing list