<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Peter Cock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:p.j.a.cock@googlemail.com" target="_blank">p.j.a.cock@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Would anyone object to a more forward looking phrasing, e.g.<br>
<br>
We currently recommend using Python 3.5 from <a href="http://www.python.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.python.org</a> and avoiding<br>
legacy Python 2.6 or 2.7 unless your choice is restricted due to having to work<br>
with old code.<br></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The word "avoiding" might cause some scientists to panic because it implies something might be wrong with the earlier versions. How about:<br><br>We currently recommend using Python 3.5 from <a href="http://www.python.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.python.org</a>. Biopython will also work with earlier Python versions 3.4, 3.3, and the legacy Python versions 2.7 and 2.6.<br><br></div></div>