Will Guido's "Python Regrets" ever get implemented/fixed?

[seberino]

Guido gave a nice "Python Regrets" Power Point talk at OSCON few years
ago.

I was wondering if the plan is to ever implement these ideas.

e.g. Guido said he'd prefer 'print' to be a *function* with perhaps a
'println' version IIRC.

He also had a ton of stuff he'd rather see become iterators.

Chris

 

[Robert Kern]

Guido gave a nice "Python Regrets" Power Point talk at OSCON few years
ago.

I was wondering if the plan is to ever implement these ideas.

e.g. Guido said he'd prefer 'print' to be a *function* with perhaps a
'println' version IIRC.

He also had a ton of stuff he'd rather see become iterators.

As currently being (re)discussed at tedious length in recent threads
here, changes would will only be realized in Python 3.0 (aka Python 3000
in facetious reference to when we can expect to see such a beast).

--
Robert Kern
(e-mail address removed)

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

 

[Jordan Rastrick]

Python 3000 is the proveribal and so far hypothetical version of the
language in which backward incompatible changes will be allowed (and
encouraged).

See

http://www.python.org/peps/pep-3000.html

for details.

 

[seberino]

Thanks! Even the fact that these ideas
have been organized into a PEP is
exciting to me....there is hope that
they may *someday* be implemented. Maybe sooner than people think.

Another reason to love Python like no other.

Chris

 

[John Roth]

As currently being (re)discussed at tedious length in recent threads here,
changes would will only be realized in Python 3.0 (aka Python 3000 in
facetious reference to when we can expect to see such a beast).

I believe the current plan is to make compatible changes in the
next few releases, and then make the incompatable changes in
Python 3.0 See PEP 3000 for details.

http://www.python.org/peps/pep-3000.html

What this means is that there is a good chance that a print()
built-in function or method on a file object may show up in
a future release, the print statment won't go away until
Python 3.0.

John Roth

 

[George Sakkis]

Thanks! Even the fact that these ideas
have been organized into a PEP is
exciting to me....there is hope that
they may *someday* be implemented. Maybe sooner than people think.

Given that the latest 2.x python will be 2.9 and that 3.0 may be
released in parallel with 2.5-2.9
(http://www.python.org/doc/essays/ppt/euro2004/euro2004.ppt), I guess
this *someday* will be no later than 2015-16, probably sooner than
that.

George

 

[Peter Maas]

Given that the latest 2.x python will be 2.9

Why not 2.13 or 2.4711? Version strings are sequences of arbitrary
integers separated by dots and not decimal numbers, or are they?

 

[John Roth]

Why not 2.13 or 2.4711? Version strings are sequences of arbitrary
integers separated by dots and not decimal numbers, or are they?

Because Guido said (somewhere) that he didn't want to go over
release 2.9.

John Roth

 

[Rocco Moretti]

Because Guido said (somewhere) that he didn't want to go over
release 2.9.

It's actually (repeated) in the talk linked to earlier. The rationale is
not touched on, though.

 

[Rod Stephenson]

Knuths font design program METAFONT is currently version 2.71828 (and
TeX is 3.141592). As new versions come out, the version numbers
converge on e and pi respectively. (As he says, when they *equal* e
and pi, they will be error free, by definition)