PEP0238 lament

[Terry Reedy]

> Could we also at least keep in the fray a slightly alternate
question
> of "what can we do about the PEP"?  I mean, as has been suggested
> elsewhere at times, one solution to the old code is not to break
it -
> using "//" (or some other sequence) as the float division is
backwards
> compatible (no current code using it) and can be introduced at any
> time for new code to use.  It wouldn't even need a lengthy period,
but
> could show up right in 2.2.
>
> It seems to me that the only real argument against that is
aesthetics,
> or am I missing something.

Perhaps.  1. PEP238 introduces *two* new meanings to replace the
current meaning, so the alternative some have asked for is not merely
a matter of switching.  2. This change is the one arithmetic change
Guido needs, and in the core and in the form proposed, for his dream
project -- CP4E.

This proposal is the first change of its type.  I hope and expect it
will be the last for years to come.

Terry J. Reedy