Jim Jewett wrote:
> On 1/17/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 1/16/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Other than dict.items (and .keys and .values) returning a non-list,
>>> are there any other cases where the Py3K idiom can't already be used
>>> in (or at least backported to) Py 2.x?
>
>> The aim for 2.6 should be to have all the new features that 3.0 has,
>> as well as full backward compatibility ...
>
> And I'm asking if there are any real barriers to this. Some people
> have suggested that they'll have to maintain separate code bases. So
> far, the closest I've seen[1] to something that can't use
> common-subset is wanting an iterator over a mapping.
To help with the transition code, could we have a 'py3migration' module
that looked something like:
if sys.version_info >= (3, 0, 0):
from _py2compat import *
else:
from _py3compat import *
By providing functions like dkeys(), ditems(), dvalues() and maybe a few
others in that module, this could allow code that needs to work in both
environments to be written, without causing significant pain to pure
Python 2 code or to pure Python 3 code.
OK, so it would mean there's still some backward compatibility cruft in
Py3k, but one module seems a small price to pay for a single obvious way
to handle semantic changes in the builtin APIs.
Regards,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
