PEP0238 lament

[Peter Hansen]

David Boddie wrote:
> 
> Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote in message news:<cpu1zy16g7.fsf at cj20424-a.reston1.va.home.com>...
> > Suppose that python 3.x would *always* have to be invoked as
> > "python3".  Would that still break legacy code?  This approach was
> > used successfully by Perl.
> 
> That's a good compromise which will prevent a lot of breakage. As long
> as you're happy with it, then I'm happy.

How so?  Wouldn't that just be something which forces people moving
to Python3 to take a small explicit step, thereby allowing us 
to say, "Of course your code broke, you changed your executable,
what did you expect?".

This could be a "solution" if the change wasn't clearly 
communicated over the next two (or whatever) years before the
change becomes the default, but assuming the change is widely
publicized, what real benefit does it bring to force the name 
of the executable to be python3?

And would the same benefit arise by having the default name
of the executable be "python3", but not forcing it to be so?

-- 
----------------------
Peter Hansen, P.Eng.
peter at engcorp.com