From: Nobody on
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:23:25 +0000, Harishankar wrote:

> Have you people embraced Python 3.x or still with 2.5 or 2.6?

Still with 2.6, and probably will be indefinitely.

I use Python mostly for Unix scripting: the kind of task which would
traditionally have used Bourne shell. For that purpose, life is much
simpler when everything is byte strings rather than character strings.

If I was doing the same thing on Windows, Python 3.x would probably make
more sense, as all of the OS APIs use Unicode (although there's still a
hell of a lot of software written using the "ANSI" interfaces; my
AppLocale folder has over a hundred entries).

From: Mensanator on
On Mar 26, 8:23 am, Harishankar <v.harishan...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you people embraced Python 3.x or still with 2.5 or 2.6?

3.1.

The only module I use regularly is gmpy and that's one that has
been updated.
From: Terry Reedy on
On 3/26/2010 9:23 AM, Harishankar wrote:
> Have you people embraced Python 3.x?

Yes. My current work only needs the stdlib and I much prefer the
streamlined language.

From: geremy condra on
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Harishankar <v.harishankar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you people embraced Python 3.x or still with 2.5 or 2.6?
>
> I personally want to switch over but not too sure how many people are
> using 3.x as opposed to 2 so I want to keep my programs compatible for
> the majority.
>
> -- Hari
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

Yes- I write new code in 3.x and backport it PRN.

Geremy Condra
From: David Cournapeau on
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Chris Colbert <sccolbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I won't switch until NumPy and SciPy make the jump.

We're almost there, though (mostly thanks to other people's work on Numpy):

http://github.com/cournape/scipy3/branches/py3k

David