On 08/01/14 23:46, Emile van Sebille wrote:
Ultimately I see this less of a v2 to v3 migration issue than simply
calling a spade a spade -- we've now got v2 and v3 python languages. One
of which we're trying to keep breathing life into. And it doesn't sound
like the dev group is on board with there being two pythons (of their
own making no less!)
Be honest now, how many of us interested in a stackless v2.8 are wanting
to migrate our code base to v3.x? I'd say none -- otherwise those would
be migrating.
I'm interested in it because it might help with incremental porting.
Having new features available would also be nice of course. But those
can be synergistic: if new features taken from Python 3 are adopted, the
polyglot stackless/python 3.x language will become more powerful. It
will be quite different from the polyglot py2/py3 language in the sense
that you *do* get benefits from writing polyglot code, not only drawbacks.
Thus I think the ability to write more advanced polyglot code is
actually an added attraction of Stackless 2.8 for those interested in
migrating, or at least those maintaining polyglot libraries.
I'd forgo migration compatibility as an issue and move on to scratching
the itches. Let's grab the candy from v3 and save the migration battle
for that day that might never come.
A bit of careful thought about how to go about this best won't hurt,
right? Perhaps it's right to see a difference between supporting
stepwise migration versus supporting a wider polyglot language.
Regards,
Martijn
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
