Comments on Version 2, Draft Pep for Deprecating Builtins

[arthur.siegel at rsmi.com]

John Roth writes -

>On a more global comment, I think we should
>get to work on 3.0 now. There are a lot of good
>ideas floating around that are not forward
>compatible, and that need some time to think
>about them

A voice from the non-professional and go slow
camp happens to agree.

The need for backward compatibility in the
2.0 series is creating an entirely new level of
complexity as things evolve, even in the case
of the deprecation PEP -  which I perceive as an
effort at simplification of the core language, and
therefore applaud in principle.

Rather than dealing with some ugly transitional
work-arounds which will cause additional hardship
to those who had committed to Python early, why
*not* an early 3.0 alpha which will reflect a  Python
with only the new style syntax and semantics, in
lieu of the painful (ands perhps not feasible) process
of transitioning the 2 series to this goal .

Seems to me that is the only way of retrieving a lean and
mean Python at this stage.

Art