On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/16/08, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > >> People would try the process on their development machines, and change > > >> the code until it actually runs under both versions. > > >> > > >> I'll be using my sprinting time to find out whether that approach > > >> can actually work. > > > > > > That would be good. I agree with the ideal process, but I doubt that > > > it will realistically work exactly like that, so I expect that calling > > > 2to3 upon install is just going to cost a lot of CPU time and then > > > produce a non-working install. > > > > > > I was thinking that a comment based "directives" approach ala doctest > > might help with some of the trickier 2->3 migrations. For example, > > allowing someone to write an explicit conversion for a particular line: > > > > for x, y, in my_izip(s1, s2): # 2to3: for x, y, in zip(s1, s2): > > > > (Dodgy example I know, but it gives the general idea) > > thats a good idea. do we want a comment to contain the alternate code or > should the comment just indicate which way a particular predefined set of > known 2to3 difficult things should be interpreted during conversion? > > parallel code is nice. but long lines will become annoying. this should > allow for the comment to be on the line below as well maybe?
I think the parallel code idea is too complex. 2to3 doesn't really think in terms of lines anyway. I think we should just have a directive to prevent 2to3 from applying a certain fixer to the line containing the directive. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
