(original) (raw)
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:28:31 +0100Do you have evidence that "most" people have settled on that approach?
"Laurence Rowe" <l@lrowe.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The approach that most people seem to have settled on for porting
> libraries to Python 3 is to make a single codebase that is compatible with
> both Python 2 and Python 3, perhaps making use of the six library.
(besides the couple of library writers who have commented on this
thread)
I've seen more projects doing it that way than maintaining dual code bases. �In retrospect, it seems way more attractive than having to run a converter all the time, especially if I could run a "2to6" tool \*once\* and then simply write new code using six-isms
Among other things, it means that:
\* There's only one codebase
\* If the conversion isn't perfect, you only have to fix it once
\* Line numbers are the same
\* There's no conversion step slowing down development
So,�I expect that if the approach is at all viable, it'll quickly become the One Obvious Way to do it. �In effect, 2to3 is a "purity" solution, but six is more like a "practicality" solution.
And if there's official support for it, so much the better.