A unified codebase is way better for maintenance, and a better user
experience.
While I used six to do 2 and 3 compatibility in cocos, I like the
suggestion of Nicola Larosa to use future instead of six.
On the practical side, it would be good to have more automated tests before
doing the code conversion, and the tests should be converted first.
Maybe after the 1.2 release we can have a week-sprint to
1. make the tests compatible with 2 and 3 without conversion
2. fix some known defects in the test suite ( some tracebacks are not
logged, false errors reported in windows, make more user friendly the run
of interactive tests, try to decrease the amount of interactive tests...)
3. convert non-problematic modules in pyglet library to unified 23
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently we natively support Py2 and support Py3 through 2to3. Fixing
> issues in Py3 is quite a hassle like this, but we also do not want to lose
> Py2 support yet. How would you feel about using a library like six to
> create a codebase that supports both Py2 and Py3 without 2to3?
>
> Rob
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "pyglet-users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pyglet-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
