Carl Banks wrote: > On Jan 9, 6:11 pm, John Machin <sjmac...@lexicon.net> wrote: >> On Jan 10, 6:58 am, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote: [...] >> Steve & Cliff are talking about the rather small subset of Python that >> is not only valid syntax in both 2.x and 3.x but also has the same >> meaning in 2.x and 3.x. > > That would be a crippled language, yes. But I do not believe that's > what Steve and Cliff are referring to. Steve wrote of "running your > code through 2to3", and that was what Cliff followed up to, so I > believe they are both referring to writing valid code in 2.6 which is > able to be translated through 2to3, and then generating 3.0 code using > 2to3. That is not a crippled language at all, just a PITA sometimes. > Correct. The recommended way of maintaining a dual-version code base is to paraphrase your 2.6 code in such a way that the 2to3 converter will produce correct 3.0 code that required no further attention. If you don't do this you are making a rod for your own back. [...]
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list