On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:04:05PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > [Anthony Baxter] > > I've had a number of people say that this is something they would > > really, really like to see - the idea is both to let people migrate > > more easily, and provide reassurance that it won't be that bad to > > migrate! > > If Py3.0 is going to come out before Py2.6, can we table the discussion > until then? We may find that a) migration was easier than we thought, > b) that stand-alone migration tools are sufficient, or c) by the time > Py2.6 comes-out, no one cares about having 2.x vs 3.x warnings. > OTOH, if people do care, then we'll have a strong case for loading > these warnings into Py2.6 before it gets close to being final.
I'm also a fan of not scratching something until it itches but if someone else already feels the itch and wants to do the work +0. The pro warnings camp has said it won't add interpreter overhead unless you ask for it (and they are willing to test that it is so). > Also, I'm wondering if the desire for 2.6 warnings is based on the notion > that > it will be possible to get large tools to work under both Py2.x and Py3.x. > With all the module renaming/packaging, old-style classes disappearing, > encoded text objects, real division and whatnot; that notion may be > a pipe-dream. No one has seriously suggested that it would be easy or if you prefer no one serious has suggested it would be easy ;) > As far as "reassurance that it won't be that bad to migrate", screens full > of warnings may be less than reassuring. If folks want to put in the effort (and people heavier than me have offered) to support light-weight optional warnings in addition to the 2to3 tool I can't complain. It seems redundant to me but their time isn't mine. -Jack _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com