John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> writes: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:25:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> writes: >>> As more people have started trying to support Python 3 in the wild, it >>> has become clear that it is often easier to have a single codebase that >>> works with both Python 2 and Python 3, and not use 2to3. >>> >>> It is for this reason that the Unicode literal prefix was reintroduced. >> >> Yes, and from that perspective, placing floor on earlier 3.x makes >> tons of sense, no? >> >> These early versions may not be unstable in the "this does not >> behave as specified in the language specification for 3.x" sense, >> but for the purpose of running scripts meant to be executable by >> both 2.x and 3.x series, the early 3.x versions are not as good as >> later versions where Python folks started making deliberate effort >> to support them. > > As far as I'm aware (and having reviewed the release notes for 3.1, 3.2 > and 3.3 as well as the planned features for 3.4), Unicode literals are > the only feature to have been added that was intended to make it easier > to support Python 2 and 3 in the same codebase.
So there may be some other incompatibility lurking that we may run into later? > Given that no code currently on pu uses Unicode literals, I don't see a > reason to specify a minimum version of Python 3 since we're already > restricting ourselves to features in 2.6. OK, at least that reasoning need to be kept somewhere, either in the documentation of in the log message. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html