On Friday, March 21, 2014 2:23:25 AM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote: > On 3/20/14 4:42 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > > Ned Batchelder : > >> Plenty of people have adopted a dual-support strategy, with one code > >> base that supports both Python 2 and Python 3. The six module can help > >> a great deal with this. > > I wonder how easy the resulting code is to the eyes and how easy it is > > for the casual maintainer to accidentally break the delicate balance. In > > a word, I wouldn't go there. Stay with Python2 as long as you must and > > then, migrate and leave it behind.
> This is fine advice for applications, but tools, libraries, and > frameworks may want to support more than one version at the same time. > It's an extreme case, but the latest released version of coverage.py > supports Python 2.3 through 3.3 with one code base. To do it, there's a > compatibility layer (akin to six). Then you stay away from features > that aren't available on all versions. In a few places, you might need > to have version checks, and the code can get a little idiomatic to > continue to work. > It's a tradeoff: you have to decide for yourself whether the effort is > worth the benefit. I was glad to be able to drop support for 2.3, 2.4, > and 2.5, and now only support 2.6-3.4 in coverage.py. Ned is talking to (and from) a lib-writer perspective Marko is talking from noob perspective (which is what the OP looks like) Good to choose our hats appropriately -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
