Hi, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On May 17, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> We can mitigate the pain. If someone writes a module in Cython for >>> Py2, and then someone wants to use it from Py3, they should just be >>> able to compile the C source file (not require the original author to >>> do something special in their Cython source). >> Sure, the original author is required to make the source ready for >> Py3 either >> way. It's very unlikely that this will work out of the box if the >> author >> relied on Py2 semantics of byte strings and unicode strings. > > My point is that if they're not required to do anything to be ready > for Py3, why force them to do so? If I want to use someone else's > (Py2) module in Py3, I should be able to just compile their C file. I > think it is extremely likely that it will just work out of the box-- > Py3 is not that incompatible.
This whole discussion sounds a lot like bike shedding to me. I say it would be better if people fixed their code instead of doing guess-work, and I have come up with a couple of examples where current Cython code breaks under the semantics you propose. You say it would make more users happy if we adopted these semantics. Why don't we just leave it the way it currently is implemented? That way, we start off with correct but strict semantics that match the way this whole ambiguity problem was fixed in Py3, and then users can decide if they want to fix their code that proves broken under Py3, or if they want to complain on the list that their broken code should be fixed by Cython. That would give us some real-life examples to debate instead of having an undermotivated "I think we have more users who would vote for x)" discussion. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
