On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <abu_hurayrah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:40 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote: >> 2008/12/5 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> Maybe I am oversimplifying. But what about using 2.6+ (<3.0) and >> ensure that all code is compatible with 3. And still have 3 in >> parallel for those who want it. So we target 2.6+ , but have 3.0 there >> to ensure everything would work with it, and for early adopters/devs >> >> -- >> Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin >> ( www.pembo13.com ) >> > > It would be very hard to write 2.6 code that is completely compatible > with 3.0, because 3.0 has changed many fundamental language constructs, > including even the "print" statement, which in 3.0 is a function (syntax > change). I believe 'print' is a poor example as it is very easy to fix. Are there other, more problematic ones? > I am not sure how far the from __future__ import feature will work for > such changes as that. Neither am I. -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
