mkriheli at gmail.com
Wed Nov 16 11:16:34 IST 2011
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Amit Aronovitch <aronovitch at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Meir Kriheli <mkriheli at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Ram Rachum <ram at rachum.com> wrote:
>>> I think that your criticism applies only to print statements which have
>>> a comma in them, and I think these are the minority.
>> For me the problem is that it alters the data passed to print, which is
>> undesired (for example print can be overriden in 3, and that may lead to
>> unexpected behavior).
>> Plus the parenthesis is a minor one for me, and won't contribute much to
>> the move to python 3, there are larger fish to fry (Unicode/Bytes, absolute
>> imports), and handling them is part of my preferred strategy for 2 to 3
>> (see next section).
>> As far as I know the `2to3` tool doesn't produce code that's
>>> backwards-compatible with Python 2.
>> And it doesn't have to. My preferred strategy for 2 and 3 is not making
>> sure the same code base works with both branches - difficult and error
>> prone and undesirable (later down the road one will be left with cruft to
>> clean up).
>> A better one is to make sure your code passes 2to3, and during build
>> process, if it's python 3, run 2to3 with distribute:
> Seems like a good idea.
> BTW, anyone tried 3to2 <http://wiki.python.org/moin/3to2> ?
> If that works fine, then at some point one could shift the main
> development to 3, and keep 2.x support for a while using the reverse method.
Ha, nice one. Didn't know about it, thanks :)
But the distribute trick won't work it I guess.
BTW, How many from this list are writing 3.x only code ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-il