Comments on: PEP 3003: “Python Language Moratorium” — Accepted http://jessenoller.com/2009/11/09/pep-3003-python-language-moratorium-accepted/ python, programming and other things Sun, 04 Mar 2012 06:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: edreamleo http://jessenoller.com/2009/11/09/pep-3003-python-language-moratorium-accepted/comment-page-1/#comment-139175 edreamleo Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:42:31 +0000 http://jessenoller.com/?p=717#comment-139175 I thoroughly approve. As the lead developer of a major Python app, I am dismayed by proposals such as pep 3101, that apparently envisages deprecating and then killing the '%' string operator. Supporting this would be *dead last* on my to-do list, and it appears to break the explicit, public promise that Python 3.x would be the one and only time that masses of existing code would be broken. I thoroughly approve. As the lead developer of a major Python app, I am dismayed by proposals such as pep 3101, that apparently envisages deprecating and then killing the ‘%’ string operator. Supporting this would be *dead last* on my to-do list, and it appears to break the explicit, public promise that Python 3.x would be the one and only time that masses of existing code would be broken.

]]> By: edreamleo http://jessenoller.com/2009/11/09/pep-3003-python-language-moratorium-accepted/comment-page-1/#comment-131653 edreamleo Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:42:31 +0000 http://jessenoller.com/?p=717#comment-131653 I thoroughly approve. As the lead developer of a major Python app, I am dismayed by proposals such as pep 3101, that apparently envisages deprecating and then killing the '%' string operator. Supporting this would be *dead last* on my to-do list, and it appears to break the explicit, public promise that Python 3.x would be the one and only time that masses of existing code would be broken. I thoroughly approve. As the lead developer of a major Python app, I am dismayed by proposals such as pep 3101, that apparently envisages deprecating and then killing the ‘%’ string operator. Supporting this would be *dead last* on my to-do list, and it appears to break the explicit, public promise that Python 3.x would be the one and only time that masses of existing code would be broken.

]]> By: catphive http://jessenoller.com/2009/11/09/pep-3003-python-language-moratorium-accepted/comment-page-1/#comment-160306 catphive Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:22:00 +0000 http://jessenoller.com/?p=717#comment-160306 EDIT: woops, left a duplicate because I thought the first comment got deleted. EDIT: woops, left a duplicate because I thought the first comment got deleted.

]]> By: jnoller http://jessenoller.com/2009/11/09/pep-3003-python-language-moratorium-accepted/comment-page-1/#comment-124539 jnoller Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:27:25 +0000 http://jessenoller.com/?p=717#comment-124539 It was brought up in the discussions of this pep on python-dev, I <br>don't remember ther arguments against it, but there were a few. It was brought up in the discussions of this pep on python-dev, I
don’t remember ther arguments against it, but there were a few.

]]> By: Brendan Miller http://jessenoller.com/2009/11/09/pep-3003-python-language-moratorium-accepted/comment-page-1/#comment-124538 Brendan Miller Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:15:11 +0000 http://jessenoller.com/?p=717#comment-124538 Has anyone talked about putting together some kind of formal standard for Python? It seems like the number of implementations has been growing steadily, and core language features are solidifying, so this seems like an appropriate time.<br><br>Probably a subset of python 3 that doesn't include the entire CPython standard library, and doesn't specify features that would be difficult to implement in some environments, like the JVM. That would provide a non-moving minimal target both for implementers, and for people wanting to write portable code. Has anyone talked about putting together some kind of formal standard for Python? It seems like the number of implementations has been growing steadily, and core language features are solidifying, so this seems like an appropriate time.

Probably a subset of python 3 that doesn’t include the entire CPython standard library, and doesn’t specify features that would be difficult to implement in some environments, like the JVM. That would provide a non-moving minimal target both for implementers, and for people wanting to write portable code.

]]>