Slashdot Mirror
Python 2.6 to Smooth the Way for 3.0, Coming Next Month
darthcamaro writes "Some programming languages just move on to major version numbers, leaving older legacy versions (and users) behind, but that's not the plan for Python. Python 2.6 has the key goal of trying to ensure compatibility between Python 2.x and Python 3.0, which is due out in a month's time. From the article: 'Once you have your code running on 2.6, you can start getting ready for 3.0 in a number of ways,' Guido Van Rossum said. 'In particular, you can turn on "Py3k warnings," which will warn you about obsolete usage patterns for which alternatives already exist in 2.6. You can then change your code to use the modern alternative, and this will make you more ready for 3.0.'"
English is not my first language, but isn't "more ready" wrong?
(against everything Christians believe in)
Not everything. He does believe in socialism, just like Jesus.
*** Obama will castrate our military and destroy our nuclear deterrent. ... etc,etc,etc for thousands of tiresome words. ***
Sounds good to me. I reckon I'll vote for him.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Not everything. He does believe in socialism, just like Richard Marx Stalin (RMS)
For what it's worth, the Dems have already won Congress.
Point-by-point refutation of connotative bias to come when I feel like it.
> Obama will castrate our military and destroy our nuclear deterrent.
I don't mind. As far as spending and numbers are concerned, we already outnumber the rest of the world. And anyone crazy enough to use nukes is crazy enough to not care about US deterrent.
> He will tax corporations and high income earners that employ the population of the US, which will force them to cut jobs and send the unemployment rate skyrocketing.
Several prominent economists disagree with this assessment. And even if it's true, New-Deal style job creation is in the pipe too.
> He sees dead people.
Who the fuck cares.
> He wants to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving us at the mercy of criminals.
If you read the linked article, you'd know this is a misrepresentation.
> He'll cut and run from Iraq, knocking the legs out from under the Iraqi government as they are finally finding their footing.
Likewise an oversimplification. The 16 months are tied to a timetable of phasing in Iraqi control of Iraq. This is no more cutting and running than a road trip is reckless driving.
> He believes homosexuals are entitled to more rights than straight people.
This claim is not supported by the transcript.
> He refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" even when presented with evidence.
No, he refuses to call a losing battle a winning battle, even if doing so keeps certain terrorists from being classified as such. The bill in question covered an omnibus of opinions, and disagreeing with one does not mean he disagreed with the whole bill.
> He will prevent us from keeping sensitive materials confidential, which will place national security at risk.
The stated plan is to go through classified materials and determine what can be declassified without threatening national security; the hypothesis is that there are many such documents kept classified for political reasons. If all of those materials really do need classified status, the department will do nothing. I fail to see the issue here.
> He would talk with terrorist countries without demanding that they cease their efforts to murder innocent people and abide by the rule of law.
Why would a country that is convinced you are the enemy do anything you tell it to do? Why would a country with whom you will not communicate listen to your demands?
> He believes the government should regulate the internet.
The government is already giving the people who run the internet an exception from antitrust law, on the basis of the "natural monopoly" created by the wires. In fact, the government helped pay for those wires. Shouldn't it have a say in how those wires are used?
> He believes in making those who have money pay for the healthcare of those who do not have money.
The alternative is for those with no money to have no healthcare either. Most of the country considers that unacceptable.
> He believes we should take corn, a staple food for the US, and use it for ethanol production, which will cause shortages in food supply and produce car exhaust that is more dangerous to humans than gasoline burning cars.
He believes we should use corn ethanol as one of many replacements for oil. Corn production has already skyrocketed on speculation for this alternative fuel. Meanwhile, your comments on the dangerous nature of ethanol exhaust are supported neither by the article nor a cursory Google search on the matter.
> He believes that parents should have no choice but to send their children to government run schools to be indoctrinated by sub-standard teachers.
How do you know? The linked article only mentions that he happens to send his kids to a private school where he gets a discount. Not supporting vouchers does not mean wanting to destroy private schools. They seem to be getting by well enough without government hand-outs.
> In short, he's an anti-American,
What the fuck does that mean.
> anti-military
And why not?
> Marxist
funny last thing i read troops and vets supported obama by margin of 4 to 1. maybe the army are sadomachacists and like castration, more likey your talking shit!