469,366 Members | 2,218 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,366 developers. It's quick & easy.

Python 3.0 or Python 3000?

Is 'Python 3000' just a code name for version 3.0, or will it really be
called that when it's released?
Apr 10 '06 #1
12 1281
[John Salerno]
Is 'Python 3000' just a code name for version 3.0, or will it really be
called that when it's released?


The smart money is on changing the name to Ecstasy, to leverage
marketing publicity from the hallucinogenic club drug of the same
name. "class" will be renamed to "rave", and the license will be
changed to prohibit use by people with bipolar disorder. Either that,
or the name will be Python 3.0.
Apr 10 '06 #2
Ray
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Or... just to save "3000" as a "time way down the road"... The next
major version of Python will be: Python PI (and each build will add
another digit... "3.1, 3.14, 3.141, ...")
I like this idea a lot. This way, people ALWAYS know what the next
release's name will be.
--
> ================================================== ============ <
> wl*****@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> wu******@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> ================================================== ============ <
> Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/> <
> Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/> <


Apr 10 '06 #3
Tim Peters wrote:
[John Salerno]
Is 'Python 3000' just a code name for version 3.0, or will it really be
called that when it's released?


The smart money is on changing the name to Ecstasy, to leverage
marketing publicity from the hallucinogenic club drug of the same
name. "class" will be renamed to "rave", and the license will be
changed to prohibit use by people with bipolar disorder. Either that,
or the name will be Python 3.0.


Gotcha. :)
Apr 10 '06 #4
John Salerno wrote:
Is 'Python 3000' just a code name for version 3.0, or will it really be
called that when it's released?


Actually, there's an official response these days in `PEP 3000`_:

"""
Naming

Python 3000, Python 3.0 and Py3K are all names for the same thing. The
project is called Python 3000, or abbreviated to Py3k. The actual Python
release will be referred to as Python 3.0, and that's what "python3.0
-V" will print; the actual file names will use the same naming
convention we use for Python 2.x. I don't want to pick a new name for
the executable or change the suffix for Python source files.
"""

... _PEP 3000: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/

STeVe
Apr 10 '06 #5
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:15:15 -0400, "Tim Peters" <ti********@gmail.com>
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
[John Salerno]
> Is 'Python 3000' just a code name for version 3.0, or will it really be
> called that when it's released?


The smart money is on changing the name to Ecstasy, to leverage
marketing publicity from the hallucinogenic club drug of the same
name. "class" will be renamed to "rave", and the license will be
changed to prohibit use by people with bipolar disorder. Either that,
or the name will be Python 3.0.


Or... just to save "3000" as a "time way down the road"... The next
major version of Python will be: Python PI (and each build will add
another digit... "3.1, 3.14, 3.141, ...")


That's actually the versioning scheme of TeX, currently being at 3.141592

--
Benjamin Niemann
Email: pink at odahoda dot de
WWW: http://pink.odahoda.de/
Apr 10 '06 #6
On 9 Apr 2006 20:32:07 -0700, rumours say that "Ray" <ra********@yahoo.com>
might have written:
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Or... just to save "3000" as a "time way down the road"... The next
major version of Python will be: Python PI (and each build will add
another digit... "3.1, 3.14, 3.141, ...")


I like this idea a lot. This way, people ALWAYS know what the next
release's name will be.


Who gave the time machine to the Donald Knuth? Have we got infiltrators?
Or did he steal it?

In other news, the unnamed chief of the PSU has stat
Apr 10 '06 #7
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:15:15 -0400, rumours say that "Tim Peters"
<ti********@gmail.com> might have written:
[John Salerno]
Is 'Python 3000' just a code name for version 3.0, or will it really be
called that when it's released?
The smart money is on changing the name to Ecstasy, to leverage
marketing publicity from the hallucinogenic club drug of the same
name. "class" will be renamed to "rave", and the license will be
changed to prohibit use by people with bipolar disorder.
Anything to do with recent rumours about license change? Will programming
in Python finally be outlawed, as it should be from the start (it's so
pleasing after all, it should be illegal)? There will be a charge per line
(of code)? Shall we become code sniffers?
Either that, or the name will be Python 3.0.


That's what we, as cautious merchands dealing with unknown clients, should
call our product. Excellent.

PS ("Mwa" + "ha"*sys.maxint) still won't work, though.
--
TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best.
"Dear Paul,
please stop spamming us."
The Corinthians
Apr 10 '06 #8
Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:12:58 +0200, Benjamin Niemann <pi**@odahoda.de>
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:

That's actually the versioning scheme of TeX, currently being at 3.141592


<eeek> My last exposure to TeX was some 15 odd years ago; and even
then it was just rudimentary stuff fed through LaTeX.


It's total nonsense as LaTeX is a bunch of macros written in TeX the
language. If you meant TeX the interpreter of the TeX the language (a
program), then it's total nonsense again, as interpreter is not
(usually) fed through anything.

Latex the program just loads LaTeX macros into the TeX interpreter
before the document to be processed, so one may say LaTeX is fed through
TeX, but not vise versa.

Anyway, it's unfair to speak of one of the most wonderful pieces of
software ever written in such a tone.

-- Sergei.

Apr 11 '06 #9
Sergei Organov wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:12:58 +0200, Benjamin Niemann <pi**@odahoda.de>
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
That's actually the versioning scheme of TeX, currently being at 3.141592
<eeek> My last exposure to TeX was some 15 odd years ago; and even
then it was just rudimentary stuff fed through LaTeX.


It's total nonsense as LaTeX is a bunch of macros written in TeX the
language. If you meant TeX the interpreter of the TeX the language (a
program), then it's total nonsense again, as interpreter is not
(usually) fed through anything.


I'm pretty sure he meant that his last exposure to TeX was writing rudimentary
stuff that he was feeding through LaTeX.
Latex the program just loads LaTeX macros into the TeX interpreter
before the document to be processed, so one may say LaTeX is fed through
TeX, but not vise versa.

Anyway, it's unfair to speak of one of the most wonderful pieces of
software ever written in such a tone.


Judging tone through email is error prone. Please try not to imagine insults
where there are none.

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco

Apr 11 '06 #10
Robert Kern <ro*********@gmail.com> writes:
Sergei Organov wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:12:58 +0200, Benjamin Niemann <pi**@odahoda.de>
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
[...] Anyway, it's unfair to speak of one of the most wonderful pieces of
software ever written in such a tone.


Judging tone through email is error prone. Please try not to imagine insults
where there are none.


Yes, you are right, I'll try to refrain from that in the future.

-- Sergei.

Apr 11 '06 #11
Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:40:50 +0400, Sergei Organov <os*@javad.com>
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:

Anyway, it's unfair to speak of one of the most wonderful pieces of
software ever written in such a tone.

I refer to the documents I was creating as "rudimentary stuff" --
IE, I made use of very little of the real power available to me... It
was: Use a Macintosh (I'm talking original with the tall narrow display)
or LaTeX on a VAX to produce transparencies for presentations...


I did misunderstood you and I'm sorry about it. Probably I just got up
too early today. Sorry once again.

-- Sergei.

Apr 11 '06 #12
I can't wait to get my hands on version PAL9000, then we will all have
to deallocate memory *the hard way*.

/per9000

---------------------------
I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it.
I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it.
I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a ... fraid.
---------------------------

Apr 11 '06 #13

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

17 posts views Thread by seb.haase | last post: by
10 posts views Thread by jantod | last post: by
14 posts views Thread by beliavsky | last post: by
34 posts views Thread by Anthony Irwin | last post: by
reply views Thread by Guido van Rossum | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Marylou17 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.