On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Marty Alchin <gulop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/1/14 Łukasz Rekucki <lreku...@gmail.com>: > > It is possible to write 3.x code that is backwards-compatible with > > python 2.6+. There are some rough edges like, names of stdlib modules, > > instance checks for strings and some introspection details. In my > > opinion, it's pretty much the same as supporting old 2.x pythons. > > In many cases, this is true, but there are other scenarios (certain > forms of exception handling, for example) where there is no syntax > that's valid in both versions. That's syntax, not just libraries and > functions. There's no way to even get a file to parse in both Python 2 > and Python 3 in these situations. There are certainly places in Django > that will run into these, so we really can't have a single codebase > that's completely compatible with both branches. > > Martin's approach was single codebase where the 3.x version for execution is generated by 2to3, not single source for execution across 2.x and 3.x. Thus I'm wondering if this difference is accounted for by 2to3? If yes, then it is not necessarily a problem that would stand in the way of maintaining single Django source and supporting Python 2.x and 3.x simultaneously. 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.
