Hmm, I guess this is the approach that would follow "from __future__ ..":
""" In the Python 2 era, we had a clear method for adding language changes: In Python 2.a, support for from __future__ import new_feature was added so you could use the new feature if you explicitly declared you wanted it. In Python 2.b, support was added by default so you could just use it without the future declaration. In Python 2.c, warnings begun being issued when you tried to use the old way, explaining you needed to change or your code would stop working. In Python 2.d, it actually did stop working. """ From: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/python3 Cheers, Richard. On 1/7/14, Richard Tew <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been thinking about this some more. > > What are we doing with Stackless 2.8? Are we making a bridge for > people to move to 3.x? What is the future of Stackless 2.8? > > If we want a move evolved version of 2.7, to encumber changes with a > required "from __future__ import .." seems.. like damning the project > before it starts. > > There must be a better way. Even if we have a compatibility mode, > where changes like nonlocal are disabled and warnings are given that > they're obsolete. And a normal mode, where shit just works. > > Cheers, > Richard. > > On 12/24/13, Richard Tew <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, give deprecation warnings and require the import seems like a >> prudent approach for backwards compatibility breaking approaches. >> >> Cheers, >> Richard. >> >> On 12/24/13, Christian Tismer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Then let's be consequent and add it via another future: >>> >>> from __future__ import nonlocal >>> >>> cheers - chris >>> >>> On 23/12/13 09:44, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: >>>> The only issue I can see (apart from work) is potential name clashes >>>> with >>>> a new keyword. I wonder how serious an issue that might be? >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] >>>> on >>>> behalf of Richard Tew [[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 11:57 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: [Stackless] nonlocal for 2.8 >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I haven't looked into what's involved yet, but how do we feel about >>>> backporting nonlocal to 2.8? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Richard. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Stackless mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Stackless mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]> >>> Software Consulting : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's >>> Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ >>> 14482 Potsdam : PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de >>> phone +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 (30) 700143-0023 >>> PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 >>> whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Stackless mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
