On 17 Gen, 05:26, John Machin <sjmac...@lexicon.net> wrote: > On Jan 17, 3:08 pm, Steve Holden <st...@holdenweb.com> wrote: > > > Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > > > On 17 Gen, 04:43, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > > >> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > > >>> That would help to avoid replacing "" with b"" almost everywhere in my > > >>> code. > > >> Won't 2to3 do that for you? > > > > I used 2to3 against my code but it didn't cover the "" -> b"" > > > conversion (and I doubt it is able to do so, anyway). > > > Note that if you are using 2.6 you should first convert your "" quotes > > to b"" - this won't make any practical difference, but then you will be > > able to run 2to3 on your code and (one hopes) covert for 3.0 automatically. > > Perhaps before we get too far down the track of telling the OP what he > should do, we should ask him a little about his intentions: > > Is he porting to 3.0 and abandoning 2.x support completely? > [presumably unlikely]
No. > So then what is the earliest 2.x that he wants to support at the same > time as 3.x? [presumably at least 2.5] I currently support Python versions from 2.3 to 2.6 by using un unique codebase. My idea is to support 3.x starting from the last upcoming release. > Does he intend to maintain two separate codebases, one 2.x and the > other 3.x? I think I have no other choice. Why? Is theoretically possible to maintain an unique code base for both 2.x and 3.x? > Else does he intend to maintain just one codebase written in some 2.x > dialect and using 2to3 plus sys.version-dependent code for the things > that 2to3 can't/doesn't handle? I don't think it would worth the effort. > Cheers, > John Thanks a lot --- Giampaolo http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
