On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Pietro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Moritz Lennert > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Issues I think might need attention (but this is without verification > within > > the grass python code): > > > > - Print Is A Function > > - Views And Iterators Instead Of Lists > > - PEP 0238: An expression like 1/2 returns a float. Use 1//2 to get the > > truncating behavior. > > - Text Vs. Data Instead Of Unicode Vs. 8-bit > > Perhaps we can insert the following import statement in all the python > scripts that we want to make compatible with python3 > > from __future__ import (nested_scopes, generators, division, > absolute_import, with_statement, print_function, unicode_literals) > > so we can start slowly to move from python2 => python3 > what do you think? > > Thanks for the overview and suggestions, Moritz and Pietro. I added the -3 flag to python call somewhere in the makefiles, which checks at least the basic things [r56821] (it runs when Python files are compiled to bytecode). The `from __future__ import` is probably a good next step. But I would start slowly, one reason is the manpower, the other is the lack of tests. I would say that this can be checked when one is changing and testing the module anyway (although it should be committed separately), not by one big change for all modules. Two questions. Is the `from __future__ import` Pietro provided save for GRASS minimal Python version (probably 2.6)? And how 2to3 tool can help us? Vaclav [r56821] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/56821 -3 : warn about Python 3.x incompatibilities that 2to3 cannot trivially fix Pietro > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev >
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
