On 12/8/2011 8:39 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
It's not the speed of 2to3 per se; this seems very reasonable for a
> tool of its type > It's the overall process, which currently involves
running 2to3
> on an
entire codebase (for example, using setup.py with flags to run 2to3
during setup).
Oh. That explains the 'slow' complaint.
However, 2to3 tools could be developed which are based on
2to3/lib2to3 and are *incremental* in nature; then as you edit and
save a file, its processed version could be available very shortly
afterwards (since we only need to translate the file that was saved)
I had assumed that people were aleady running 2to3 on a per edited file
basis already. On a multi-core machine, I would think it possible to run
2to3 and then a test on the result in a separate process while tests are
running on the 2.x version.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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
