Bugs in CPython 3.1.1 [wave.py]
Alf P. Steinbach
alfps at start.no
Wed Jan 13 08:38:34 CET 2010
* Stefan Behnel:
> Alf P. Steinbach, 13.01.2010 06:39:
>> * Steven D'Aprano:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:42:28 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>> It is hopeless, especially for a newbie, to create correct Python
>>>> 2.x+3.x compatible code, except totally trivial stuff of course.
>>> So you allege, but André points out that there are existing,
>>> non-trivial applications that work unmodified under both Python 2.x
>>> and 3.x. For example, CherryPy:
>>> You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, but not your own
>>> reality, and the reality is that it is NOT "hopeless" to write
>>> correct Python code that operates under both 2.6 and 3.x. It's not
>>> hopeless because it's been done. You might even be able to target
>>> versions older than 2.6 if you really work at it, as CherryPy does.
>>> Continuing to assert something which is demonstrably untrue simply
>>> means you lose credibility among those who are familiar with Python.
>> You're confusing the existence of special cases where something has
>> been done, at great cost, with a belief that it's practical to do so
>> in general.
> Unless you can prove that it's *not* practical in general, you will have
> to live with the fact that it was, and continues to be, practical for
> existing code bases (and certainly for new code), so it clearly is not
> hopeless to do so, not even "in general".
Simple proof: Python 3.x still lacks widespread usage. :-)
Cheers & hth.,
More information about the Python-list