On 12/16/2014 12:31 PM, Brian Curtin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >>> >>> IMO, you should consider forking your library code for Python2 and >>> Python3. >> >> I don't get the idea that Brett Cannon agrees with you: >> >> http://nothingbutsnark.svbtle.com/commentary-on-getting-your-code-to-run-on-python-23 >> >> While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression reading >> his recent blog post that he supports one source, not forked sources. >> >> In the absence to evidence to the contrary, I think of Brett as the most >> expert developer in the porting space. > > I'm a few inches shorter than Brett, but having done several sizable > ports, dual-source has never even on the table. I would prefer the > "run 2to3 at installation time" option before maintaining two versions > (which I do not prefer at all in reality).
I have a handful of projects. The tiny ones are one-source, the biggest one (dbf) is not. If I had an entire application I would probably split the difference, and just have dual source on a single module to hold the classes/functions that absolutely-had-to-have-this-or-that-feature (exec (the statement) vs exec (the function) comes to mind). -- ~Ethan~
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
