perspective of the core team, especially around changes in mind from strong statements made around 3.0 4/
-
-
because it has taken so long, and mostly I've seen people blaming "doomsdayers", I stopped assuming it would 5/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
eventually get better. But it seems it has. I think a strong statement from core about this would help. 6/6
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not entirely sure what the strong statement you're looking for would actually include.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
"we made some mistakes in the py3.0 timeframe, but have since changed our philosophy about the migration" 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"our new philosophy is that single-codebase + six is the best migration strategy." 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"many libraries have already done so, and if you find it difficult for some reason, we are open to further 3/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
changes in both py2.7 and py3.x to smooth the transition path" 4/4
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
fwiw single code base is now documented as the right way - https://docs.python.org/3/howto/pyporting.html …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
it looks like things are heading in the right direction -- https://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingPythonToPy3k … still the top hit on Google
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm genuinely not trolling -- as a non-Python user who has to use Python, the "current status" is cryptic
-
-
I have tried hard to keep up to date, but things like the Zed article overpower the mishmash of official info
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.