On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Jed Brown wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > Since we use python for configure [which is supporsed to be portable] > > - we shouldn't be insiting on single/latest version of python - like > > any of these python applications can do. We have to support as > > many[and old] version as we can. > > > > Right, but if 99% of users had python-2.5 or later (on all machines they > used), we'd be in a reasonable position to stop maintaining compatibility > with older python. Sean's point about being able to support python-3 within > the same code base is good.
I verymuch doubt python3 would become the 'default python' anytime soon so I see no disadvantate to sticking with python-2 for a while. If we need to support python 3 [in configure] - then we should have duplicate code for the parts that conflict. Satish
