2010/1/14 Marty Alchin <gulop...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Karen Tracey <kmtra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Yes, I was a bit less clear than I should've been. I was responding on > an assumption that the author was expecting a single codebase to work > with 2 and 3 without going through 2to3 in between. That is what I meant. And I believe it is possible even with those syntactic diffrences.
> To my knowledge, > 2to3 does handle all the syntactic issues between the two, but I just > wanted to make it clear that it's definitely not "pretty much the same > as supporting old 2.x pythons." I'm not saying it is *as easy*. Surely, it's more complicated and requires more work. And actually, I agree with that 2to3 already handles most of this stuff, so it's the right way to go. At least now. What I really wanted to say, is that using 2to3 on a 2.6 code that uses (for example) __future__.unicode_literals is more likely to succed. > > -Gul > -- Łukasz Rekucki
-- 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.
