Yes, probably introducing real language changes via __future__,
and then we can make a 2.9 where the future is already there. ;-)
cheers - chris
On 06.01.14 20:01, Richard Tew wrote:
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
--
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
