+1 to Python 2.4 I get the impression that Python 2.4 is widely used in well-known tech giants.
On Mar 9, 8:10 pm, Tal Einat <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed Python 2.5 has been around for many years and is a reasonable minimum > version to support IMO. > > Python 2.5 added with blocks, conditional expressions and unified > try/except/finally, among other things. It would be a shame to deprive > ourselves of using these features in the RPyC codebase. Versions 2.6 and > 2.7, on the other hand, didn't add as many empowering features. > > +1 on Python 2.5 as the oldest supported 2.x version. > > - Tal > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Tomer Filiba <[email protected]> wrote: > > do you think it's feasible to have a single codebase for the two versions? > > > at first i thought the changes would be minimal -- but they turned out to > > be quite numerous. > > and it's not only syntax -- brine and vinegar had to be partially > > rewritten, as well as lots of small changes, > > like items() instead of iteritems() and byte strings instead of strings. > > > i think maintaining the two versions in the same codebase would be a > > nightmare... > > everything would be so cumbersome and tedious. > > > another idea i had was to have a xxx3.py version of every xxx.py module, so > > they all live side by side, > > but i don't think it makes much sense. > > > ========== > > > on a side note, what is the minimum version of python do you people think > > RPyC should support? > > i think 2.5 is early enough (been released in 2006)... should we retain 2.4 > > compatibility? > > > -tomer > > > An NCO and a Gentleman > > > 2011/3/8 Alex Grönholm <[email protected]> > > > I see that you've put some py3k only code in the master3 branch. What's > >> your plan? Are you abandoning the idea of compatibility code and a shared > >> codebase?
