On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:16 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, it *is* common to install Python code before running it.
Not every time you make a change in the code. > Lennart, can you please comment whether this (need for compilation) > was also your concern, or just Ralf's? That is a part of it yes. I have to say I thought this discussion was over with, and that the argument against this was that it would be too difficult to support a large enough common codebase between 2.6 and 3.0 for it to be useable. Of course, it was impossible to say if this was the case before the 2.6a1 was out. Now it is out, and I have started testing. And as far as I can see, this not the case. The overlap is very big, very much thanks to 2.6 supporting many of the new syntax of 3.0. The unicode u'' seems to be the only major stumbling block. Hence, a common codeset *is* a practical possibility. Now, it is quite possible to say that this isn't desirable, and that 2.6 and 3.0 should not be able to run the same code at all, even if that was possible, but I haven't heard that opinion, and hope it isn't common. If we need to have this discussion again, I will prepare a longer answer to why the 2to3 conversion should be supplemented with a possible gradual code path. I started to write an answer already, but it's going to take me a while, and I'd rather not. :) -- Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting. http://www.colliberty.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 _______________________________________________ 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
