I don't know much about the architectural decisions of rpy2, but, If rpy2 were standing on top of ctypes instead of directly implementing a c interface, it would be easier to go up along with the python version upgrades.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Alex Mandel <tech_...@wildintellect.com> wrote: > 조성일 wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I understand python 3.0 is going to be the future standard. >> Is there a plan to develop RPy for python 3.0 soon? >> Currently RPy2 requires python 2.x, and doesn't seem to work with 3.0. I am >> wondering whether I should hold on to python 2.x, or move to py3k and >> wait for a new RPy. >> >> I couldn't easily find this topic in the archives, so I would appreciate any >> advice. >> >> Thank you, >> Sungil > > That depends on your time frame, if need something working and ready > soon but can't convert Rpy2 to py3k yourself then you should use py2.x > > I'm not a developer on this project but as a general rule would guess > it's going to take a year for most python based projects to catch up and > release for py3k.(It's only been 2 months) > > So if you rely on any non-standard modules you probably shouldn't switch > quite yet. > > Alex > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > SourcForge Community > SourceForge wants to tell your story. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword > _______________________________________________ > rpy-list mailing list > rpy-list@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rpy-list > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ rpy-list mailing list rpy-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rpy-list
