The potential for a Python 2.8.

[Roy Smith]

In article <mailman.5926.1390529147.18130.python-list at python.org>,
 MRAB <python at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:

> On 2014-01-24 01:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> >> Burying 'Python 2.8' was the purpose of PEP 404. It is kind of bizarre.
> >> Developers informally said 'No 2.8'. People would not believe that. So
> >> developers formally said 'No 2.8'. They even inverted the purpose of PEP to
> >> make the formal announcement visible and permanent. And a few people still
> >> do not want to believe it.
> >
> > Can I get a new version of Java 1.1.8 please? I want it to include all
> > the cool features that I want from the newer versions, but it has to
> > still run all my existing code. I'm not going to put in any effort to
> > actually _make_ this, I want you to do it for me.
> >
> > Actually, the Java versioning system was enough of a mess that, to
> > this day, I don't know what version(s) my old Java code would and
> > wouldn't run on. So glad to have moved away from that. At least with
> > Python, semantic versioning [1] means everyone knows what everyone's
> > talking about. Python 2.8 has to be broadly compatible with 2.7 and
> > doesn't have to be compatible with 3.3. (Which, incidentally, is at
> > odds with some people's idea of a 2.8, which would be incompatible
> > with both. I'm not sure what that would be called - e.1? sqrt(8).0?
> > Something else?)
> >
> [snip]
> Python 2.8j?

You're imagining things.