py3k s***s

[Donn Cave]

In article <mailman.551.1208379857.17997.python-list at python.org>,
 Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote:

> Aaron Watters wrote:

> > The cost paid for these minor improvements is too high in my
> > book.  But I suppose if it is going to happen do it sooner
> > rather than later.  Just *please* *please* don't
> > systematically break the pre-existing code base again for a
> > very long time, preferable ever.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the 3.0 compatibility breakage is a one-shot deal. If 
> it's not I won't be the only one looking for Guido with a bog stick in 
> my hand ...

Depending on what you mean, that appears to be either a
truism or an absurdity.  If you mean, 3.1 won't break
code like 3.0 did ... well, of course.  If you mean, there
won't be a 4.0 that means the same thing for compatibility
that 3.0 means, then I can't imagine how you could be
convinced of this.  Changes to Python in 3.0 won't satisfy
the continuing "need" for change thereafter.

   Donn Cave, donn at u.washington.edu