On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 09:53, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 08:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote: > > >Hmm. It seems to me that this argument implies that PEP 414 is just > >as likely to *slow down* adoption of Python3 as it is to speed it up, > >since if this issue is as big a barrier as indicated, many potential > >porters may choose to wait until OS vendors are supporting 3.3 widely > >before starting their ports. We are clearly expecting that the reality > >is that the impact will be at worse neutral, and hopefully positive. > > If PEP 414 helps some projects migrate to Python 3, great. > > But I really hope we as a community don't perpetuate the myth that you > cannot > port to Python 3 without this, and I hope that we spend as much effort on > educating other Python developers on how to port to Python 3 *right now* > supporting Python 2.6, 2.7, and 3.2. That's the message we should be > spreading and we should be helping developers understand exactly how to do > this effectively, among the many great options that exist today. Only in > the > most extreme cases or the most inertially challenged projects should we say > "wait for Python 3.3". > Well, when the code is committed I will update the porting HOWTO and push the __future__ imports first since they cover more versions of Python (i.e. Python 3.2). But I will mention the options that skip the __future__ imports for those that choose not to use them (or have already done the work of using the u prefix in their code). Plus that doc probably will need an update of caveats that seem to bit everyone (e.g. the str(bytes) thing which I didn't know about) when trying to do source-compatible versions.
_______________________________________________ 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
