On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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. :) > > That would be wasteful, indeed. > > Few people think that 3k should actively, aggressively, deliberately > break 2.x code. > > However, it is decided and has been carved into stone that 3k must > not include any transitional features that serve no other purpose > but to allow running 2.x code. Therefore, you won't get u'text' as > an alternative for 'text', and you won't get a 'unicode' builtin. > All the transitional mechanisms either get into 2.x, or 2to3, or not > implemented at all. > Will python 2.6 have something like "from future import unicode_string_literals" ? This should also solve lennart's problem. (But then py3k would need to support that future import, which is forbidden).
_______________________________________________ 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
