Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> For example, if I'm using the (real source) py2.6 code, and I create a >> patch that works for me, it is ready for testing and submission. If >> I'm using the (generated) py3 code, then I first have to get a copy of >> the (source) 2.6, figure out how I *would* have written it there, then >> keep tweaking it so that the generator eventually puts out ... what I >> had originally written by hand. > > Yes, that's tedious. In that case, it is easier to edit the original > source, and then rerun 2to3, rather than editing the compiler output. > This technique has actually been the one recommended by Guido for migration for at least a year now. Clearly you can't have developers tweaking source on both sides of the "great divide", as one may have to re-cast bits of one's 2.6 code in order to get a satisfactory translation into 3.0.
Once you start editing 3.0 source you have to either leave the 2.X world behind or accept a dual-source development. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
