On Dec 2, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Antonio Cuni wrote: > On 02/12/13 21:08, Philip Jenvey wrote: >> >> It's a bit weird w/ PyPy3 and PyPy sharing the version numbering scheme, at >> least for now, since it implies the release schedules are tied together. >> Maybe they should be though? >> >> Calling it PyPy3 w/ the same version scheme seemed to make the most sense vs >> the other options. A PyPy3 v0.1 could have broken some cases of code like >> sys.pypy_version_tuple < (1, 5) in the wild. Calling it PyPy 3.0 would have >> made sense but forced the CPython 2.7 compat. PyPy stick with a 2.x scheme >> forever. > > > another issue is with cpyext: if sys.pypy_version_number is the same, pypy3 > extension modules will have the same .pypy-22.so extension as the pypy2 > version, causing potentially lots of troubles.
For this particular issue the suffix could be 'pypy3' instead. Though this is not ideal, should 'PyPy3' be reflected in sys.version, sys._mercurial[0], platform.python_implementation(), etc? > > I cannot think of a good way to solve the problem though. One possibility is > to have pypy_version_number incremented by 3000, so that this would be PyPy > 30002.2. Note that this would still break code like pypy_version_number > (2, > 2). This would be weird but I don't think it would break any version number checks, being a higher number. -- Philip Jenvey _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
