PEP0238 lament

[David Boddie]

Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote in message news:<cpu1zy16g7.fsf at cj20424-a.reston1.va.home.com>...
> david at boddie.net (David Boddie) writes:
> 
> > It's strange. I don't mind the introduction of default float division
> > at some point in the future, despite having to rewrite many of my
> > modules with no future-proof, succinct integer division operator to
> > hand. However, diplomatic attempts to avoid breakage of legacy code
> > appear to have failed. I suspect that the best we can hope for is
> > non-silent breakage via compile-time exceptions.
> 
> I'm assuming this was aimed at me, so I'll respond.

The bit about carrying "baggage" (which isn't quoted above) was sort
of aimed at you, but the above paragraph was more resignation that we
can't find a totally satisfactory solution than a jibe at you.

> Suppose that python 3.x would *always* have to be invoked as
> "python3".  Would that still break legacy code?  This approach was
> used successfully by Perl.

That's a good compromise which will prevent a lot of breakage. As long
as you're happy with it, then I'm happy.

> I just don't want to encumber the language itself with version
> encrustations.  It offends my sense of elegance in language design.

And I don't want to make your life unpleasant by attempting to coerce
you into keeping features that make the language inconsistent. If I
was a newcomer to Python, and had to choose between "classic" division
and "future" division, then I'd prefer "future" division. I'll also
find it useful when it appears.

I just don't like unnecessary waste, but then I expect that you don't
either.

David