Python 3.0 migration plans?

Ben Finney bignose+hates-spam at
Fri Sep 28 04:30:51 CEST 2007

TheFlyingDutchman <zzbbaadd at> writes:

> It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
> what it adds.

That's certainly the focus of an explicitly backward-incompatible
upgrade, yes.

> What are the additions that people find the most compelling?

Most of the additions that will go into 2.6 are doing so because
they'll appear in 3.0. That's a benefit: anything from 3.0 that makes
sense to add to 2.6 will go in; the rest of 3.0's changes are mostly
backwards-incompatible (i.e. removals and conflicting changes).

I find the following compelling:

  - 'str' becomes Unicode type, 'int' becomes unified-int-and-long
    type <URL:>

  - Consistent, unambiguous integer literal syntax
    <URL:> and the 'bytes'
    type for non-text strings

  - Default source encoding is UTF-8
    <URL:> and support for
    non-ASCII identifiers

  - Reorganisation of the standard library for consistency

  - Renaming raw_input to input, so 'input()' does the obvious thing

  - Clarification of 'raise' and 'except' semantics

  - Abstract Base Classes

  - everything that's being added to 2.6 :-)

 \      "I bought a self learning record to learn Spanish. I turned it |
  `\        on and went to sleep; the record got stuck. The next day I |
_o__)                could only stutter in Spanish."  -- Steven Wright |
Ben Finney

More information about the Python-list mailing list