4 ms·

Are you talking about making Python 2.6 code work on Python 2.4, or about making Python 2.4 code work on Python 2.6? The parent is talking about the latter for

Are you talking about making Python 2.6 code work on Python 2.4, or about making Python 2.4 code work on Python 2.6? The parent is talking about the latter for Python 3 (edit: looks like I misunderstood, never mind), but you seem to be talking about the former. They're not the same thing.

chungy 7y ago
Python doesn't break backwards compatibility like that. Code written against 3.0 will still work perfectly fine on 3.8; likewise for 2.0 code running against 2.7. Parent seemed to be talking about the reverse: going backwards, and implying that 2 didn't have major new features, even though it very much did.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  No, it does break backward compatibility, especially when they introduce new keywords, but also with stuff like: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22928672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22928672
- pansa2 7y ago
  > Code written against 3.0 will still work perfectly fine on 3.8 Not 100%. For example, using `async` as a variable name works in 3.0 but not in 3.8, where it is a keyword.
  - chupasaurus 7y ago
    Are you talking about PEP-0492? It was added in 3.5.2 with deprecation of previous behavior in 3.7, release dates of those are separated by exactly 2 years, with deprecation warnings in 3.6.
    - pansa2 7y ago
      Looks like PEP 492 introduced `async` as a contextual keyword in 3.5, and it became a proper keyword in 3.7.
- justinsaccount 7y ago
  Python3.8 is breaking things left and right because people are using the walrus operator and then realizing that users don't actually have python3.8 installed. https://github.com/search?q=remove+%22walrus+operator%22&type=Commits https://github.com/search?q=remove+%22walrus+operator%22&typ...
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    Wow this is horrifying: if (diff := coord - lower) < self.view_dist: I would've assumed walrus would've only been used at the top level of the expression, not nested inside a conditional!
    - mianos 7y ago
      A pretty normal C idiom. Maybe some old C programmers wanted it? (One of which I am but I like my python pythonic so it wasn't me).
      - mehrdadn 7y ago
        Yeah I know it's common in C, but that sure as heck doesn't imply it should be done in Python!
usmannk 7y ago
The parent is talking about the former.

chungy 7y ago

Python doesn't break backwards compatibility like that. Code written against 3.0 will still work perfectly fine on 3.8; likewise for 2.0 code running against 2.7. Parent seemed to be talking about the reverse: going backwards, and implying that 2 didn't have major new features, even though it very much did.

mehrdadn 7y ago
No, it does break backward compatibility, especially when they introduce new keywords, but also with stuff like: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22928672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22928672
pansa2 7y ago
> Code written against 3.0 will still work perfectly fine on 3.8 Not 100%. For example, using `async` as a variable name works in 3.0 but not in 3.8, where it is a keyword.
- chupasaurus 7y ago
  Are you talking about PEP-0492? It was added in 3.5.2 with deprecation of previous behavior in 3.7, release dates of those are separated by exactly 2 years, with deprecation warnings in 3.6.
  - pansa2 7y ago
    Looks like PEP 492 introduced `async` as a contextual keyword in 3.5, and it became a proper keyword in 3.7.
justinsaccount 7y ago
Python3.8 is breaking things left and right because people are using the walrus operator and then realizing that users don't actually have python3.8 installed. https://github.com/search?q=remove+%22walrus+operator%22&type=Commits https://github.com/search?q=remove+%22walrus+operator%22&typ...
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Wow this is horrifying: if (diff := coord - lower) < self.view_dist: I would've assumed walrus would've only been used at the top level of the expression, not nested inside a conditional!
  - mianos 7y ago
    A pretty normal C idiom. Maybe some old C programmers wanted it? (One of which I am but I like my python pythonic so it wasn't me).
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Yeah I know it's common in C, but that sure as heck doesn't imply it should be done in Python!

usmannk 7y ago

The parent is talking about the former.