On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:02:45 -0500 > PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Well, with all due respect, this is hand-waving. Sure, if it's > viable, then fine. The question is if it's "viable", precisely. That > depends on which project we're talking about. > What I'm saying is that it has many characteristics that are desirable for people who need to support Python 2 and 3 - which is likely the most common use case for library developers. > In effect, 2to3 is a "purity" solution, but > > six is more like a "practicality" solution. > > This sounds like your personal interpretation. I see nothing "pure" in > 2to3. > It's "pure" in being optimized for a world where you just stop using Python 2 one day, and start using 3 the next, without any crossover support. As someone else pointed out, this is a more common case for application developers than for library developers. However, until the libraries are ported, it's harder for the app developers to port their apps. Anyway, if you're supporting both 2 and 3, a common code base offers many attractions, so if it can be done, it will.
_______________________________________________ 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
