11.03.2011 10:20, Rüdiger Kessel kirjoitti:
I do not understand why the Python compiler does not support all
syntax and you tell him at the beginning what syntax you want to use.
Because then the Python maintainers would have to support old, flawed
designs that were dropped in v3.0. If you want 2.x syntax you'll have to
use a 2.x interpreter. Sometimes it's a good idea for the snake to shed
its old skin :)
I do not know much of Python as I said before, but I was never
interested how other people limit their doing or thinking. I try to do
what is practical. Programming is not a religion for me. At the end
nobody is doing it because nobody is doing it.
You method is not the most practical one here, that's why it's not being
done.
Anyhow, I was just asking stupid questions and since you all have uch
more experience than me I was interested in your answers. Thank you. I
will be not much help in the porting.
2011/3/11 Rüdiger Kessel <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
If you want a single code base and nice coding you probably need
some macros...
One could even define macros that produce the ugly stuff...
I do not understand why everybody is not doing it this way, but I
do it that way in my projects.
2011/3/11 Alex Grönholm <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
11.03.2011 09:37, Rüdiger Kessel kirjoitti:
I have done no porting at all, but I usually end up
programming in a macro language in all my projects in the
past. I usually do not write the code in the language it will
be compiled at the end. What is the can of worms you are
talking about? In my experience have 2 code basis are a can
of worms.
Which is why I'm suggesting a SINGLE code base.
Again, I do not have enough "Python" experience to judge this
things. But I am looking for a powerful pre-processor for
Python because I am starting to see the need for it in "my"
projects.
2011/3/11 Alex Grönholm <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
11.03.2011 09:20, Rüdiger Kessel kirjoitti:
This looks like a perfect pre-processor task to me.
Define a macro "EXCEPT(a,b)" that will be converted to
"except a,b" or to "except a as b". Defining the macros
might be a bit of work, but then you could write one
common source where both versions can be derived from.
The only disadvantage is that you need to code
everything in macros. That is the price of maintaining
only one source code base.
No, it isn't. Nobody uses preprocessors for this, unless
you count 2to3 as one. The correct way to do it in a way
that works for both 2.x and 3.x is:
try:
...
except Exception:
exc = sys.exc_info()[1]
....
Preprocessors (other than 2to3) would open a whole new
can of worms, which is totally unnecessary here. Trust me
-- in all likelihood, I've done a lot more porting than
you have :)
This is what I mean with "local" changes. If you can
achieve the same thing in 2.x and in 3k by changing
segments of a few lines each then you can use a
pre-processor. But that would not lead to the need of
moving things between modules, doesn't it?
2011/3/10 Alex Grönholm <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
11.03.2011 03:32, Rüdiger Kessel kirjoitti:
I read that one, but I got the impression that
changes are all local. Why would one want to move
things between modules just because it uses py3k
syntax?
It looks to me that basically the same structures
should work for both. Maybe I am missing something
fundamental here.
The syntax changes are fairly radical. For example,
how would you catch named exceptions (and assign to
a variable) in a way that works for both 3.x and
2.x? There is an ugly but workable way, but I'd just
like to check if you've understood the problem.
2011/3/10 Alex Grönholm <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
11.03.2011 03:17, Rüdiger Kessel kirjoitti:
Sorry for being stupid. I did not see Python
py3k yet. I saw no need. I use Python because
it is available everywhere.
I thought that py3k was just some syntactical
different dialect. But obviously it is more.
Does it have completely new data types and
does it not support the types from 2.x any more?
This should answer most of your questions:
http://docs.python.org/release/3.0.1/whatsnew/3.0.html
Rüdiger
2011/3/10 Alex Grönholm
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
10.03.2011 18:27, Tomer Filiba kirjoitti:
no, it's not really possible, because
many types were moved between modules, or
completely dropped.
also, the object model has changed a
little, and since netrefs play with the
low-level stuff, they have to be adapted.
all in all, the syntax part is the least
of our concerns.
I've done quite a bit of py3k porting work
myself, so could you be a little more
specific? Maybe I can address those concerns.
-tomer
An NCO and a Gentleman
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 00:41, Rüdiger
Kessel <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Sorry for asking this stupid
question, but is there any good
python preprocessor out there that
can support the version problem so
that the code can look nice, but
still comes from a common code base?
Ruediger
2011/3/9 Jorge Maroto
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:59 PM,
Tomer Filiba
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
> yeah, i had the feeling someone
would sneak in redhat and
> their nonexistent releases...
> you know, being stuck with
software from 2004 in 2011... how
come people PAY
> money for that "support"?
IMHO they just pay to have
someone to put the blame on. :).
