[Python-Dev] readd u'' literal support in 3.3? (original) (raw)
PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Tue Dec 13 20:02:45 CET 2011
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] readd u'' literal support in 3.3?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] readd u'' literal support in 3.3?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:28:31 +0100 "Laurence Rowe" <l at 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.
Do you have evidence that "most" people have settled on that approach? (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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20111213/4ac32cdc/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] readd u'' literal support in 3.3?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] readd u'' literal support in 3.3?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]