Pep 3105: the end of print?

[Jean-Paul Calderone]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:17:23 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <steve at remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:49:03 -0500, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:32:21 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>I don't think that follows at all. print is only a problem if you expect
>>>your code to work under both Python 2.x and 3.x. I wouldn't imagine
>>>that many people are going to expect that: I know I don't.
>>
>> I think some people are confused that the language "Python 3.x" has "Python"
>> in its name, since there is already a language with "Python" in its name,
>> with which it is not compatible.
>
>There is no language "Python 3" -- yet. We're still all guessing just
>how compatible it will be with Python 2.
>
>To be precise, there is an experimental Python 3, but the specifications
>of the language are not fixed yet.
>
>As for the name... big deal. C and C++ and Objective C are completely
>different languages. Fortran 77 and Fortran 90 aren't exactly the same;
>nobody expects the same code to run unmodified on Forth 77 and FigForth,
>or any of another three dozen varieties of Forth.
>
>And dare I mention Java and Javascript?
>

I was just pointing out that some people might be confused.  I didn't make
any judgement about that fact.  You seem to be suggesting that because there
are other confusing things, it's okay for Python to be confusing too.  I'm
not making any judgements about that, either.

>Even in the Python world, nobody expects to run the same code base under
>C Python and Jython and IronPython and PyPy.
>

I wonder if the fact that Jython and IronPython can't run most Python programs
is one of the reasons they are generally only used in special circumstances?

PyPy isn't finished yet, however, it _is_ an /explicit/ goal of PyPy to be
compatible with CPython, so it doesn't really belong on that list.

Jean-Paul