On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:28:31 +0100 > "Laurence Rowe" <l...@lrowe.co.uk> wrote: > > > > The approach that most people seem to have settled on for porting > > libraries to Python 3 is to make a single codebase that is compatible > with > > both Python 2 and Python 3, perhaps making use of the six library. > > Do you have evidence that "most" people have settled on that approach? > (besides the couple of library writers who have commented on this > thread) > I've seen more projects doing it that way than maintaining dual code bases. In retrospect, it seems way more attractive than having to run a converter all the time, especially if I could run a "2to6" tool *once* and then simply write new code using six-isms Among other things, it means that: * There's only one codebase * If the conversion isn't perfect, you only have to fix it once * Line numbers are the same * There's no conversion step slowing down development So, I expect that if the approach is at all viable, it'll quickly become the One Obvious Way to do it. In effect, 2to3 is a "purity" solution, but six is more like a "practicality" solution. And if there's official support for it, so much the better.
_______________________________________________ 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
