Python 3.0 migration plans?

[TheFlyingDutchman]

On Sep 28, 12:34 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de... at nospam.web.de> wrote:
> TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
>
> >> Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to
> >> answers for people that do seek enlightment...
>
> > I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not
> > seeking enlightenment. I do also happen to voice my opinion which
> > seems appropriate since this can be characterized as a discussion
> > group. It theoretically is possible for a discussion group to tolerate
> > opinions that diverge from the majority.
>
> I would characterize
>
> """
> I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @
> things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and
> static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class.
> """
>
> not as seeking enlightenment, but as pure trolling. Disqualifying features
> without actually understanding them as "silly" certainly doesn't lie on one
> of the many path's to enlightenment known man - which to my knowledge
> usually require more humble approaches....

Some posts seek enlightenment, some voice opinions. Opinions aren't
always voiced humbly. I don't think you will have to look far for
examples of people other than myself not expressing opinions humbly.

>
> > One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago
> > in the Perl group is that there is no separate group
> > comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting
> > hit with RTFM! and the like.
>
> And I wish people that have no clue about the deeper workings of Python
> wouldn't insist on commenting on these in inappropriate ways as above, but
> instead try and _understand_ them before debunking them or suggesting
> changes.
>

I will grant you that "silly" is too strong a word to use in a group
of ardent users but I think it should be completely valid to gripe
about the syntax at least once.