On 2/28/2012 7:10 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
The PEP 314 approach seems to assume that that if things work on 3.3, they will work on 3.2/3.1/3.0 without any changes other than replacing u'xxx' with 'xxx'.
(Delete 3.0. 3.1 is also less of a concern.) It actually assumes that if things work on 3.3 *and* 2.7 (or .6), then ... . At first glance, this seems reasonable. If the code works on 2.7, then it does not use any new 3.3 features. Nor does it depend on any 3.3-only bug fixes that were part of a feature patch. 2.6, of course, is essentially not getting any bugfixes.
In other words, you aren't supposed to want to e.g. test 3.2 and 3.3 iteratively, using a workflow which intersperses edits with running tests using 3.2 and running tests with 3.3.
Anyone who is also targeting 3.2 could run a test32 script whenever they need to take a break. Or it could be run in the background (perhaps on a different core) while editing continues. People will work this out on a project by project basis, or use one of the other solutions.
In any case, a single code base seems not to be possible across 2.6+/3.0/3.1/3.2/3.3+ using the PEP 314 approach, though of course one will be possible for just 2.6+/3.3+. Early adopters of 3.x seem to be penalised by this approach: I for one will try to use the unicode_literals approach wherever I can.
Early adoption of new tech typically has costs as well as benefits ;-). -- 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
