Backwards Compatibility of Python versions

Jonathan Hogg jonathan at
Tue Feb 5 11:56:13 CET 2002

On 5/2/2002 2:06, in article 7xg04gisvz.fsf at, "Paul
Rubin" <phr-n2002a at> wrote:

> OK, that takes care of 1.5.2.  I gather that 2.0.* never became very
> widespread.  So I wonder now, whether more people are using 2.1.* than
> 1.5.2, and whether there will still be a significant amount of 2.1
> installations when 3.0 is released.  If it sounds like there won't be,
> then I'll probably just put
>  if 3/2==1: <print upgrade-to-new-script message and exit>
> at the top of my scripts and then code for 2.1.  When 2.1 gets more
> displaced by 2.2 and later, I can switch over to import future division.

Eh? Sorry, what is the test meant to achieve? This test will succeed and the
program will exit in all versions of the interpreter until 3.0 when the
semantics of classic division change. Did you mean that to be a '<>' as a
test for the introduction of Python 3.0?

If you want maximum compatibility then continue to code in forward
compatible 1.5.2. Your scripts will be fine for a long time yet. I wouldn't
bother switching to using new 2.x features unless you need to.

After making such a lot of noise about backwards compatibility, you seem to
be remarkably willing to ditch your 1.5.2 users...

On a related note, what exactly broke RH Anaconda in Python 2.x? Has someone
investigated this. I'd be interested in hearing the actual cause rather than
the speculation that has been going on here.

Did anyone from the Python "inner circle" contact RedHat to ask them? or
discuss solving the problem to allow them to ship a modern version of the


More information about the Python-list mailing list