How about the ellipses as a Python 3 marker?
>From a previous discussion, the error messages on this null-op should
be made better in Python 3.0 anyway.
If ellipses are allowed as a stand-alone statement, much like pass,
then we could just have these messages:
Python 2.6: "Unexpected '...'. Ellipses not supported until Python
3.0. Another cause might be pasting in code from within the IDLE
interpreter.
Python 3.0: 'Unexpected '...'. Might be caused by pasting in code
from within the IDLE interpreter.
An idiom that might be used during the early transition period:
... # Require python 3.x
print ("I'm Pythonic!")
The idiom would disappear with time, not add special cruft to the
language, and would give a reasonable compile-time error message.
Just a thought,
Charles
---
Charles Merriam
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
u: http://www.charlesmerriam.com
q: "Crufty solutions make crufty curmudgeons."
On Feb 2, 2008 11:47 PM, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yep we've already been through that problem in the past when list
> comprehensions, generators and with were added to name a few. since python
> 3 code is highly unlikely to even parse with a 2.x interpreter much of the
> time thats a reason to consider a .py3 extension if this precedent of not
> caring is to be broken.
>
> -0 on using .py3 instead of .py for python 3. i think its slightly silly
> but i won't object.
>
> +1 on devising a way (to appear starting in 2.6 and 3.0) of marking the
> minimum language version required by a file near the top so that the parser
> can bail with a useful error message instead of one confusing to the lay
> person. similar to a from future import type of thing perhaps? or should
> python parse a #! line and magically notice a required major version number
> in the python binary name (evil but it would work and magically annotate a
> bunch of existing code as 2 vs 3)?
>
> also yes python 3 should build and install as 'python3' as the short form of
> its name though realistically anyone sane will write their code with #!
> lines specifying the actual version in the executable name and have shell
> aliases setup if they want an even shorter name.
>
>
>
> On 2/2/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Leif> There is already an idiom with other packages (pygtk etc.) that
> > Leif> suggests syntax like
> >
> > Leif> try:
> > Leif> python.require('3.1')
> > Leif> except:
> > Leif> print('Some warning about version incompatibility')
> > Leif> exit(1)
> >
> > It won't work in this case. Compilation of the module might well fail
> > because of Python2/Python3 syntax differences.
> >
> > Skip
_______________________________________________
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
