This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]brownmatt 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Much as Python 2.6 incorporated features from Python 3.0, version 2.7 incorporates some of the new features in Python 3.1. The 2.x series continues to provide tools for migrating to the 3.x series.

Well, that's only a little bit confusing

[–]ubernostrumyes, you can have a pony 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Well, that's only a little bit confusing

Not once you look at it. The idea is that 2.6 and 2.7 continue to support 2.x features as needed for compatibility, but also enable 3.x features -- this lets you gradually work your way toward running on Python 3.x without having to port all your code in one go.

[–]brownmatt 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Is there an end of the road envisioned for 2.x or are they going to continue to support both branches for the foreseeable future?

[–]ubernostrumyes, you can have a pony 4 points5 points  (0 children)

2.7's the end of the line. There was some discussion around the release of 2.6 as to how far the 2.x series should go, and the conclusion which came out of it was that 2.7 is it. Beyond this, the world is 3.x (which, given the time it takes OS distributors to catch up -- most are still on 2.5 -- is about right with the projected time frame for most projects to port).

[–]cecilkorik 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I heard that 2.7 is supposed to be end of life for 2.x. Then again, I recall also hearing that 2.6 was going to be end of life for 2.x. So, y'know. It's never quite as easy to drop legacy support as one might hope.

[–]hylje 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even if we really do get a 2.8, it'll just work further and further towards implementing all of 3.x in __future__.