On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Hanne Moa <hanne....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/1/13 Tobias McNulty <tob...@caktusgroup.com>: > > I am by no means an expert on the matter, but I remember seeing a comment > > awhile back suggesting that it generally makes more sense to fix the 2to3 > > script than to maintain two branches of the same library. Might that be > the > > case here as well? > > Py3K does not support old-style classes. Django uses these quite a > lot, for instance the Meta-class of a model is old-style. I don't > think it is in any way possible to have an automatic script convert > these in a sensible way as django is deliberately utilizing the > difference between old and new style in no doubt a django-specific > way. If django on 2.x could be rewritten to no longer depend on > old-style classes, and was made to depend on python 2.6 or newer, then > 2to3 would have a chance to do its magic. > > I'm no expert either, but as I understanding it maintaining single source for 2.x (where x can be lower than 6) and 3.x and using 2to3 to generate the 3.x version during install may be a viable option. This is the approach that was taken by Martin v. Löwis when he got an initial port working back in late 2008: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingDjangoTo3k He cites bugs in 2to3 as a barrier to getting the approach to work at that time, but doesn't note anything insurmountable he ran across in the Django source. It is true the port only verified that getting through the tutorial worked, but that covers the basics of models certainly. Karen--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
