Michael Bayer wrote: > Seconded. I tried Python 3K for the first time this weekend, spent a > few hours with the 2to3 tool and we have 80% of SQLAlchemy unit tests > passing on 3.0 now. It was far easier than I'd hoped, and the > decisions made in PY3K make perfect sense to me. Its a better language > and I think it will become popular more quickly than we've all thought. > Great job to everyone on the list here who's spent many months > hammering out all the details ! > > To be determined on our end is how to maintain 2.XX and 3.XX branches, > either through an automated 2to3 process, or by maintaining separate > branches. I'm leaning towards the former, possibly by augmenting 2to3 > with specially annotated comments that give hints to particularly thorny > sections. As I go through the code base making post-2to3 manual fixes, > I'm adding in comments denoting the manual changes which I hope to turn > into....something.
Personally, I think some kind of doctest-style comment based hints or directives for 2to3 could be very useful in helping folks to automate the generation of the 3.0 versions of their code. But it will take feedback from those doing the conversions to determine what kind of directives would actually be helpful (if any). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
