On 5/8/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/8/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I will be unhappy if 2to3 produces code that I can't run in (at least) > > 2.6, because then I would need to convert more than once.
> This is the first time I hear of this requirement. It has not so far > been a design goal for the conversions in 2to3. The workflow that I > have in mind (and that others have agreed to be workable) is more like > this: > 1. develop working code under 2.6 > 2. make sure it is warning-free with the special -Wpy3k option > 3. use 2to3 to convert it to 3.0 compatible syntax in a temporary directory > 4. run your unit test suite with 3.0 > 5. for any defects you find, EDIT THE 2.6 SOURCE AND GO BACK TO STEP 2 The problem is what to do after step 5 ... Do you leave your 3 code in the awkward auto-generated format, and suggest (by example) that py3 code is clunky? Do you immediately stop supporting 2.x? Or do you fork the code? -jJ _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
