The potential for a Python 2.8.

[MRAB]

On 2014-01-24 01:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
>> Burying 'Python 2.8' was the purpose of PEP 404. It is kind of bizarre.
>> Developers informally said 'No 2.8'. People would not believe that. So
>> developers formally said 'No 2.8'. They even inverted the purpose of PEP to
>> make the formal announcement visible and permanent. And a few people still
>> do not want to believe it.
>
> Can I get a new version of Java 1.1.8 please? I want it to include all
> the cool features that I want from the newer versions, but it has to
> still run all my existing code. I'm not going to put in any effort to
> actually _make_ this, I want you to do it for me.
>
> Actually, the Java versioning system was enough of a mess that, to
> this day, I don't know what version(s) my old Java code would and
> wouldn't run on. So glad to have moved away from that. At least with
> Python, semantic versioning [1] means everyone knows what everyone's
> talking about. Python 2.8 has to be broadly compatible with 2.7 and
> doesn't have to be compatible with 3.3. (Which, incidentally, is at
> odds with some people's idea of a 2.8, which would be incompatible
> with both. I'm not sure what that would be called - e.1? sqrt(8).0?
> Something else?)
>
[snip]
Python 2.8j?