> On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:32 , Dirk Bächle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > On 23.09.2015 12:28, Russel Winder wrote: >> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 09:13 +0200, Dirk Bächle wrote: >>> >> […] >>> >>> I volunteer to weed out some of the old Python 2.x stuff (where x < 7 >>> ;) ) on a separate bug branch. I have all the scons_testsuite >>> stuff ready (just like for the slots change), in order to show that >>> there are no large speed penalties coming with it. >>> >>> >> Does this mean we can revert all the 2.6-isms that were introduced >> instead of using nice 2.7, 3.3+-isms? >> > > > I'd suggest to continue as follows: > > - Remove special Python constructs for Python 2.5 and smaller on a bug > branch, then merge it > to tip of "default" as usual. > - I'd then like to add another issue on top of this where I do some changes > to the core architecture > (pushing classes around to entangle the dependencies of Node and > Taskmaster a little bit), again > merged to "default". > - Then, merge this new tip of "default" to the "python3" branch. > - Continue with bugfixing on "default", while on "python3" we can then start > to remove 2.6 constructs > and work on getting the code to be 2.7/3.x compatible at the same time. >
Has anyone tried to run futurize with the “-1” option? It’s specifically designed to modify 2.x code to the 2.7 compatibility standard without requiring any external code (does not need to “import future” but does add “from __future__…”). It specifically does not try for python 3 support in that mode. — Tim Jenness _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
