Hi, I have kept quiet on this issue, but I'd like to mention that I'm not looking forward at all --but would accept it anyway if others deemed it a good idea-- to have to write all my code in all of "rpython/" in the restricted style of 2+3 mixed-mode code bases.
This might create a source of friction if me and other core devs are not sold to the idea: we'll keep writing new code in the 2.7-only style, or even accidentally refactor some pieces of code to a more canonical 2.7 style. Then if we get ready to set up a buildbot to run all the tests with Python 3.x, and (more importantly) if we have people that are dedicated to fixing failures shown only by that buildbot, then this will introduce many conflicts with freshly-written and actively-edited code. General unhappiness will follow. The only reasonable way I can see for this would really be for all devs to write 2+3 mixed code in the first place, hence my position: please convince me that it's worth it. :-) My position about the Python 2.x/3.x issue is that I'm extremely happy to deal with a *frozen* language when writing interpreters. It avoids a lot of maintenance cost to keep track of the latest version of Python all the time, and this job of keeping track is imho pointless in this specific context. I'm not saying "Python 3 is bad" in general! But I'm saying "Python 3.x has no benefit for us, and it has several issues." These issues include the fact that it's not frozen. Another one would be the fact that 3.x is more unicode-oriented: it plays against us for writing interpreters for languages that have different ways to support unicode that what (R)Python has, e.g. utf8-everywhere, or 2- versus 4-bytes chars, etc. A bientôt, Armin. _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
