On 1/16/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:52 PM 1/16/2007 +0000, Steve Holden wrote: > >I foresee that many people would be happy restricting their 2.X source > >slightly to ensure perfect translation into (working, no necessarily > >optimal) 3.0. Under those circumstances the 2to3 tool wouldn't > >necessarily have to translate all valid 2.X to 3.0. > > Actually, it would be several times more preferable to either have that > restricted subset of code run on 3.0 without translation, or for translated > code to still be usable in 2.X. > > I have often been in the habit of running test suites back-to-back on > multiple versions of Python while doing test-driven development, so having > a repeated translation step would interfere with that. Ideally, a > translation should be necessary one time only -- in which case requiring > manual cleanup steps isn't as big of a problem. > > The idea here being that, once 2.6 is widely-enough deployed that it can be > assumed as a base for one's users, you can simply run the translator once, > do any cleanup, and then have 3.0-clean code that also still runs for your > installed base. > > That way, there's no chasm to leap; just a code cleanup.
I understand; I would rather have that too, everything else being the same. But everything else wouldn't be the same -- it would place many more restrictions on 3.0, and the common subset would still be much smaller. For me personally, the weight of the added restrictions to 3.0 is the killer. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
