Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Cyrille Artho]

Would anyone oppose to change the requirements for devel as stated above?

python 2.7 or 3.3+


I think it's a very good idea as Python 2.7 is still default on Mac OS 
and perhaps also other platforms.

--
Regards,
Cyrille Artho - http://artho.com/
Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot,
are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.
-- George Gordon Noel Byron

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Cyrille Artho]

Would anyone oppose to change the requirements for devel as stated above?

python 2.7 or 3.3+


I think it's a very good idea as Python 2.7 is still default on Mac OS 
and perhaps also other platforms.

--
Regards,
Cyrille Artho - http://artho.com/
Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot,
are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.
-- George Gordon Noel Byron

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Friday 16 May 2014 11:50:10 Richard Heck wrote:
 I don't, but I'd suggest you reissue this question with a new subject 
 line, so everyone will see it.
 
 Richard

Fair enough. :-)
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Friday 16 May 2014 11:50:10 Richard Heck wrote:
> I don't, but I'd suggest you reissue this question with a new subject 
> line, so everyone will see it.
> 
> Richard

Fair enough. :-)
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Thursday 15 May 2014 21:07:28 Georg Baum wrote:
 This plan looks sensible. As far as OS X 10.7 is concerned: 
 https://www.python.org/download/mac claims that you can install their binary 
 packages in parallel to the system python, so if anybody really wants to use 
 a current version of LyX on a 5 year old OS, the he could as well do the 
 extra work and install an additional python package.
 
 Georg

Would anyone oppose to change the requirements for devel as stated above?

python 2.7 or 3.3+

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Richard Heck]

On 05/16/2014 11:10 AM, José Matos wrote:

On Thursday 15 May 2014 21:07:28 Georg Baum wrote:

This plan looks sensible. As far as OS X 10.7 is concerned:
https://www.python.org/download/mac claims that you can install their binary
packages in parallel to the system python, so if anybody really wants to use
a current version of LyX on a 5 year old OS, the he could as well do the
extra work and install an additional python package.

Georg

Would anyone oppose to change the requirements for devel as stated above?

python 2.7 or 3.3+


I don't, but I'd suggest you reissue this question with a new subject 
line, so everyone will see it.


Richard

Re: Re: Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Thursday 15 May 2014 21:07:28 Georg Baum wrote:
> This plan looks sensible. As far as OS X 10.7 is concerned: 
> https://www.python.org/download/mac claims that you can install their binary 
> packages in parallel to the system python, so if anybody really wants to use 
> a current version of LyX on a 5 year old OS, the he could as well do the 
> extra work and install an additional python package.
> 
> Georg

Would anyone oppose to change the requirements for devel as stated above?

python 2.7 or 3.3+

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Richard Heck]

On 05/16/2014 11:10 AM, José Matos wrote:

On Thursday 15 May 2014 21:07:28 Georg Baum wrote:

This plan looks sensible. As far as OS X 10.7 is concerned:
https://www.python.org/download/mac claims that you can install their binary
packages in parallel to the system python, so if anybody really wants to use
a current version of LyX on a 5 year old OS, the he could as well do the
extra work and install an additional python package.

Georg

Would anyone oppose to change the requirements for devel as stated above?

python 2.7 or 3.3+


I don't, but I'd suggest you reissue this question with a new subject 
line, so everyone will see it.


Richard

Re: Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Georg Baum]

José Matos wrote:

 On Saturday 03 May 2014 07:27:51 Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
 Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X systems
 more ancient than the current one - they are running python 2.5-2.6.
 
 benjamin
 
 python 2.7 was released on July of 2010. The next version of lyx will be
 available probably on 2016, late 2015 at best (taking into account the
 previous releases).
 
 If we go with python 2.7 we will be able to support python 2 and python 3
 with the same code base, using a python version version released more than
 5 years ago. Doing this while retaining support for previous versions will
 be an harder work that will be thrown out in the next version.
 
 My proposal is then to support both python 2.7 and 3.3+. For those that
 have python 3.1 and 3.2 (no one in his right mind should be using python
 3.0) they will probably also have python 2.7 so our bases are covered
 there.

This plan looks sensible. As far as OS X 10.7 is concerned: 
https://www.python.org/download/mac claims that you can install their binary 
packages in parallel to the system python, so if anybody really wants to use 
a current version of LyX on a 5 year old OS, the he could as well do the 
extra work and install an additional python package.


Georg

Re: Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Georg Baum]

José Matos wrote:

> On Saturday 03 May 2014 07:27:51 Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
>> Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X systems
>> more ancient than the current one - they are running python 2.5-2.6.
>> 
>> benjamin
> 
> python 2.7 was released on July of 2010. The next version of lyx will be
> available probably on 2016, late 2015 at best (taking into account the
> previous releases).
> 
> If we go with python 2.7 we will be able to support python 2 and python 3
> with the same code base, using a python version version released more than
> 5 years ago. Doing this while retaining support for previous versions will
> be an harder work that will be thrown out in the next version.
> 
> My proposal is then to support both python 2.7 and 3.3+. For those that
> have python 3.1 and 3.2 (no one in his right mind should be using python
> 3.0) they will probably also have python 2.7 so our bases are covered
> there.

This plan looks sensible. As far as OS X 10.7 is concerned: 
https://www.python.org/download/mac claims that you can install their binary 
packages in parallel to the system python, so if anybody really wants to use 
a current version of LyX on a 5 year old OS, the he could as well do the 
extra work and install an additional python package.


Georg

Re: Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Wednesday 07 May 2014 08:35:01 Pavel Sanda wrote:
 :)) Seems the python devs really know what they are doing.
 
 Pavel

$ python -m this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

...
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
...
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
...

I like the fact that they admit their mistakes. :-)

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Thursday 08 May 2014 12:57:43 Kornel Benko wrote:
 How works this code in python2?
 Sorry for my apparent ignorance.
 
 Kornel

Adding to that file
from __future__ import print_function

this works since python 2.6 

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Wednesday 07 May 2014 08:35:01 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> :)) Seems the python devs really know what they are doing.
> 
> Pavel

$ python -m this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

...
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
...
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
...

I like the fact that they admit their mistakes. :-)

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Thursday 08 May 2014 12:57:43 Kornel Benko wrote:
> How works this code in python2?
> Sorry for my apparent ignorance.
> 
> Kornel

Adding to that file
from __future__ import print_function

this works since python 2.6 

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Kornel Benko]

Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2014 um 15:18:42, schrieb José Matos jama...@lyx.org
 On Wednesday 07 May 2014 11:23:48 Kornel Benko wrote:
  At least prints could be rewritten with
  import sys
  ...
  sys.out.write(...)
  or
  output = open(...)
  output.write()
 
  No dependencies on python2 or python3.
  Just my 2 cents.

 But then it would not look like neither python 2 or python 3. It is not 
 idiomatic in any version.

I don't get it. It is not what we want?

 The print function support both cases in a more natural way:

 In [1]: help (print)
 ...
 print(...)
 print(value, ..., sep=' ', end='\n', file=sys.stdout, flush�lse)
 ...


How works this code in python2?
Sorry for my apparent ignorance.

Kornel

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Kornel Benko]

Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2014 um 15:18:42, schrieb José Matos 
> On Wednesday 07 May 2014 11:23:48 Kornel Benko wrote:
> > At least prints could be rewritten with
> > import sys
> > ...
> > sys.out.write(...)
> > or
> > output = open(...)
> > output.write()
> >
> > No dependencies on python2 or python3.
> > Just my 2 cents.
>
> But then it would not look like neither python 2 or python 3. It is not 
> idiomatic in any version.

I don't get it. It is not what we want?

> The print function support both cases in a more natural way:
>
> In [1]: help (print)
> ...
> print(...)
> print(value, ..., sep=' ', end='\n', file=sys.stdout, flush�lse)
> ...
>

How works this code in python2?
Sorry for my apparent ignorance.

Kornel

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

Hi,

Again - on OS X 10.7, this will not work. And I don’t think the scripts used in 
LyX are that complex that we cannot handle them with using the future 
statement; for the two first scripts I converted, the work was trivial and did 
not require it. 

We can maybe start by not using it and discussing when/if needed. 

Benjamin

On 6 May 2014 at 22:09:59 , Neal Becker (ndbeck...@gmail.com) wrote:

José Matos wrote:  

 On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:  
 I think the python-future package is helpful  
  
 Do you mean  
  
 from __future__ import print_function, division  
  
 if so I agree. :-)  
  

No, I mean:  
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/future  

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Kornel Benko]

Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2014 um 10:49:55, schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski 
bpiwo...@lyx.org
 Hi,

 Again - on OS X 10.7, this will not work. And I don’t think the scripts used 
 in LyX are that complex that we cannot handle them with using the future 
 statement; for the two first scripts I converted, the work was trivial and 
 did not require it.

At least prints could be rewritten with
import sys
...
sys.out.write(...)
or
output = open(...)
output.write()

No dependencies on python2 or python3.
Just my 2 cents.

 We can maybe start by not using it and discussing when/if needed.

 Benjamin

 On 6 May 2014 at 22:09:59 , Neal Becker (ndbeck...@gmail.com) wrote:

 José Matos wrote:

  On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:
  I think the python-future package is helpful
 
  Do you mean
 
  from __future__ import print_function, division
 
  if so I agree. :-)
 

 No, I mean:
 https://pypi.python.org/pypi/future


Kornel

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Monday 05 May 2014 09:54:40 Richard Heck wrote:
 If there are, at that time, cases where 2.7 is not going to be 
 available, then we can package Python ourselves with the binary, as we 
 already do on Windows.
 
 What's the reason to require 3.3+? (I'm not familiar with developments 
 here.)
 
 Richard

Some sort of compromise. :-)

Think about it as the surprise test paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox

The question regarding which is the minimum version of python 3 to support is 
more or less like this:

 * python 3.0 was the first implementation and it has some features that were 
later restored to behave as python 2.x

 * python 3.1 is a iterative improvement over 3.0 and definitively a better 
choice than 3.0

 * the same can be said about python 3.2

 * and python 3.3, where for example the unicode strings u were re-enacted 
after being missing from the previous three releases.

 * python 3.4 is even a better release in terms of porting code from python 2.7

 * python 3.5 will be an even better to help to the porting effect.

So the ideal, IMHO, would be to based as the minimal version for python 3 the 
current 3.4, as a second best to use 3.3 as the starting point.

In terms of the support going back to 3.2 at least in terms of linux, every 
distribution that supports python 3.2 also supports python 2.7 so there is no 
gain supporting 3.2.

The main argument here is heuristic. I hope that this makes some sense. :-)
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Wednesday 07 May 2014 11:23:48 Kornel Benko wrote:
 At least prints could be rewritten with
 import sys
 ...
 sys.out.write(...)
 or
 output = open(...)
 output.write()
 
 No dependencies on python2 or python3.
 Just my 2 cents.

But then it would not look like neither python 2 or python 3. It is not 
idiomatic in any version.

The print function support both cases in a more natural way:

In [1]: help (print)
...
print(...)
print(value, ..., sep=' ', end='\n', file=sys.stdout, flush=False)
...

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Pavel Sanda]

José Matos wrote:
 The question regarding which is the minimum version of python 3 to support is 
 more or less like this:
 
  * python 3.0 was the first implementation and it has some features that 
 were later restored to behave as python 2.x

:)) Seems the python devs really know what they are doing.

Pavel

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

Hi,

Again - on OS X 10.7, this will not work. And I don’t think the scripts used in 
LyX are that complex that we cannot handle them with using the future 
statement; for the two first scripts I converted, the work was trivial and did 
not require it. 

We can maybe start by not using it and discussing when/if needed. 

Benjamin

On 6 May 2014 at 22:09:59 , Neal Becker (ndbeck...@gmail.com) wrote:

José Matos wrote:  

> On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:  
>> I think the python-future package is helpful  
>  
> Do you mean  
>  
> from __future__ import print_function, division  
>  
> if so I agree. :-)  
>  

No, I mean:  
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/future  

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Kornel Benko]

Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2014 um 10:49:55, schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski 

> Hi,
>
> Again - on OS X 10.7, this will not work. And I don’t think the scripts used 
> in LyX are that complex that we cannot handle them with using the future 
> statement; for the two first scripts I converted, the work was trivial and 
> did not require it.

At least prints could be rewritten with
import sys
...
sys.out.write(...)
or
output = open(...)
output.write()

No dependencies on python2 or python3.
Just my 2 cents.

> We can maybe start by not using it and discussing when/if needed.
>
> Benjamin
>
> On 6 May 2014 at 22:09:59 , Neal Becker (ndbeck...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> José Matos wrote:
>
> > On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:
> >> I think the python-future package is helpful
> >
> > Do you mean
> >
> > from __future__ import print_function, division
> >
> > if so I agree. :-)
> >
>
> No, I mean:
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/future


Kornel

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Monday 05 May 2014 09:54:40 Richard Heck wrote:
> If there are, at that time, cases where 2.7 is not going to be 
> available, then we can package Python ourselves with the binary, as we 
> already do on Windows.
> 
> What's the reason to require 3.3+? (I'm not familiar with developments 
> here.)
> 
> Richard

Some sort of compromise. :-)

Think about it as the surprise test paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox

The question regarding which is the minimum version of python 3 to support is 
more or less like this:

 * python 3.0 was the first implementation and it has some "features" that were 
later restored to behave as python 2.x

 * python 3.1 is a iterative improvement over 3.0 and definitively a better 
choice than 3.0

 * the same can be said about python 3.2

 * and python 3.3, where for example the unicode strings u"" were re-enacted 
after being missing from the previous three releases.

 * python 3.4 is even a better release in terms of porting code from python 2.7

 * python 3.5 will be an even better to help to the porting effect.

So the ideal, IMHO, would be to based as the minimal version for python 3 the 
current 3.4, as a second best to use 3.3 as the starting point.

In terms of the support going back to 3.2 at least in terms of linux, every 
distribution that supports python 3.2 also supports python 2.7 so there is no 
gain supporting 3.2.

The main argument here is heuristic. I hope that this makes some sense. :-)
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Wednesday 07 May 2014 11:23:48 Kornel Benko wrote:
> At least prints could be rewritten with
> import sys
> ...
> sys.out.write(...)
> or
> output = open(...)
> output.write()
> 
> No dependencies on python2 or python3.
> Just my 2 cents.

But then it would not look like neither python 2 or python 3. It is not 
idiomatic in any version.

The print function support both cases in a more natural way:

In [1]: help (print)
...
print(...)
print(value, ..., sep=' ', end='\n', file=sys.stdout, flush=False)
...

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Pavel Sanda]

José Matos wrote:
> The question regarding which is the minimum version of python 3 to support is 
> more or less like this:
> 
>  * python 3.0 was the first implementation and it has some "features" that 
> were later restored to behave as python 2.x

:)) Seems the python devs really know what they are doing.

Pavel

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Neal Becker]

José Matos wrote:

 On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:
 I think the python-future package is helpful
 
 Do you mean
 
 from __future__ import print_function, division
 
 if so I agree. :-)
 

No, I mean:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/future

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Neal Becker]

José Matos wrote:

> On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:
>> I think the python-future package is helpful
> 
> Do you mean
> 
> from __future__ import print_function, division
> 
> if so I agree. :-)
> 

No, I mean:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/future

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Richard Heck]

On 05/04/2014 07:10 PM, José Matos wrote:

On Saturday 03 May 2014 07:27:51 Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:

Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X systems more 
ancient than the current one - they are running python 2.5-2.6.

benjamin

python 2.7 was released on July of 2010. The next version of lyx will be 
available probably on 2016, late 2015 at best (taking into account the previous 
releases).

If we go with python 2.7 we will be able to support python 2 and python 3 with 
the same code base, using a python version version released more than 5 years 
ago. Doing this while retaining support for previous versions will be an harder 
work that will be thrown out in the next version.

My proposal is then to support both python 2.7 and 3.3+. For those that have 
python 3.1 and 3.2 (no one in his right mind should be using python 3.0) they 
will probably also have python 2.7 so our bases are covered there.


If there are, at that time, cases where 2.7 is not going to be 
available, then we can package Python ourselves with the binary, as we 
already do on Windows.


What's the reason to require 3.3+? (I'm not familiar with developments 
here.)


Richard

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Josh Hieronymus]

On Apr 24, 2014 5:13 PM, Josh Hieronymus josh.p.hierony...@gmail.com
wrote:

 if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up, we could
include the statement from __future__ import print_function in any file
in which we use the print function

I misremembered this before, but Python 2.6 supports the import of the
print function from the __future__ module as well. Earlier versions of
Python, however do not.

Josh

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Richard Heck]

On 05/04/2014 07:10 PM, José Matos wrote:

On Saturday 03 May 2014 07:27:51 Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:

Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X systems more 
ancient than the current one - they are running python 2.5-2.6.

benjamin

python 2.7 was released on July of 2010. The next version of lyx will be 
available probably on 2016, late 2015 at best (taking into account the previous 
releases).

If we go with python 2.7 we will be able to support python 2 and python 3 with 
the same code base, using a python version version released more than 5 years 
ago. Doing this while retaining support for previous versions will be an harder 
work that will be thrown out in the next version.

My proposal is then to support both python 2.7 and 3.3+. For those that have 
python 3.1 and 3.2 (no one in his right mind should be using python 3.0) they 
will probably also have python 2.7 so our bases are covered there.


If there are, at that time, cases where 2.7 is not going to be 
available, then we can package Python ourselves with the binary, as we 
already do on Windows.


What's the reason to require 3.3+? (I'm not familiar with developments 
here.)


Richard

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Josh Hieronymus]

On Apr 24, 2014 5:13 PM, "Josh Hieronymus" 
wrote:
>
> if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up, we could
include the statement "from __future__ import print_function" in any file
in which we use the print function

I misremembered this before, but Python 2.6 supports the import of the
print function from the __future__ module as well. Earlier versions of
Python, however do not.

Josh

Re: Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Saturday 03 May 2014 07:27:51 Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
 Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X systems 
 more ancient than the current one - they are running python 2.5-2.6. 
 
 benjamin

python 2.7 was released on July of 2010. The next version of lyx will be 
available probably on 2016, late 2015 at best (taking into account the previous 
releases).

If we go with python 2.7 we will be able to support python 2 and python 3 with 
the same code base, using a python version version released more than 5 years 
ago. Doing this while retaining support for previous versions will be an harder 
work that will be thrown out in the next version.

My proposal is then to support both python 2.7 and 3.3+. For those that have 
python 3.1 and 3.2 (no one in his right mind should be using python 3.0) they 
will probably also have python 2.7 so our bases are covered there.

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Saturday 03 May 2014 07:27:51 Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
> Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X systems 
> more ancient than the current one - they are running python 2.5-2.6. 
> 
> benjamin

python 2.7 was released on July of 2010. The next version of lyx will be 
available probably on 2016, late 2015 at best (taking into account the previous 
releases).

If we go with python 2.7 we will be able to support python 2 and python 3 with 
the same code base, using a python version version released more than 5 years 
ago. Doing this while retaining support for previous versions will be an harder 
work that will be thrown out in the next version.

My proposal is then to support both python 2.7 and 3.3+. For those that have 
python 3.1 and 3.2 (no one in his right mind should be using python 3.0) they 
will probably also have python 2.7 so our bases are covered there.

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Richard Heck]

On 05/03/2014 01:27 AM, Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
On 2 May 2014 at 19:41:52 , José Matos (jama...@lyx.org 
mailto:jama...@lyx.org) wrote:

On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:
 I think the python-future package is helpful

Do you mean

from __future__ import print_function, division

if so I agree. :-)

Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X 
systems more ancient than the current one - they are running python 
2.5-2.6.


We should decide on the minimum version of Python we want to support for 
2.2.


Richard

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Richard Heck]

On 05/03/2014 01:27 AM, Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
On 2 May 2014 at 19:41:52 , José Matos (jama...@lyx.org 
) wrote:

On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:
> I think the python-future package is helpful

Do you mean

from __future__ import print_function, division

if so I agree. :-)

Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X 
systems more ancient than the current one - they are running python 
2.5-2.6.


We should decide on the minimum version of Python we want to support for 
2.2.


Richard

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

On 1 May 2014 at 23:06:16 , José Matos (jama...@lyx.org) wrote:
On Thursday 24 April 2014 17:13:43 Josh Hieronymus wrote:  
 The question:... Was there a reason that we were using  
 binary mode in the first place?  
  
 Josh  

IIRC it was to deal with the end line char in windows, but this was to support 
python 2.2 and my memory is fuzzy about further details. This was before the 
universal end line support in python.  

OK, so going to text mode should not be a problem anymore.

Benjamin 

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Neal Becker]

I think the python-future package is helpful

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:
 I think the python-future package is helpful

Do you mean

from __future__ import print_function, division

if so I agree. :-)

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

On 2 May 2014 at 19:41:52 , José Matos (jama...@lyx.org) wrote:
On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:  
 I think the python-future package is helpful  

Do you mean  

from __future__ import print_function, division  

if so I agree. :-)  

Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X systems more 
ancient than the current one - they are running python 2.5-2.6. 

benjamin

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

On 1 May 2014 at 23:06:16 , José Matos (jama...@lyx.org) wrote:
On Thursday 24 April 2014 17:13:43 Josh Hieronymus wrote:  
> The question:... Was there a reason that we were using  
> binary mode in the first place?  
>  
> Josh  

IIRC it was to deal with the end line char in windows, but this was to support 
python 2.2 and my memory is fuzzy about further details. This was before the 
universal end line support in python.  

OK, so going to text mode should not be a problem anymore.

Benjamin 

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Neal Becker]

I think the python-future package is helpful

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:
> I think the python-future package is helpful

Do you mean

from __future__ import print_function, division

if so I agree. :-)

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

On 2 May 2014 at 19:41:52 , José Matos (jama...@lyx.org) wrote:
On Friday 02 May 2014 13:31:36 Neal Becker wrote:  
> I think the python-future package is helpful  

Do you mean  

from __future__ import print_function, division  

if so I agree. :-)  

Yes, but it would be good not to use it, in order to support OS X systems more 
ancient than the current one - they are running python 2.5-2.6. 

benjamin

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Thursday 24 April 2014 17:13:43 Josh Hieronymus wrote:
 The question:... Was there a reason that we were using
 binary mode in the first place?
 
 Josh

IIRC it was to deal with the end line char in windows, but this was to support 
python 2.2 and my memory is fuzzy about further details. This was before the 
universal end line support in python.

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

On Thursday 24 April 2014 17:13:43 Josh Hieronymus wrote:
> The question:... Was there a reason that we were using
> binary mode in the first place?
> 
> Josh

IIRC it was to deal with the end line char in windows, but this was to support 
python 2.2 and my memory is fuzzy about further details. This was before the 
universal end line support in python.

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Georg Baum]

Stephan Witt wrote:

 Sorry, you're wrong. My Mac comes with 2.7.2 and I have to install some
 additional software package to use python 3. It's possible, but I don't
 recommend to force users to do so. It's a hassle and I've heard of users
 getting problems with software suddenly broken because of the installation
 of the alien python 3 package - this was LyX. But it may be other
 software as well.

OK, this is of course a good reason to continue to support 2.x. I am a bit 
surprised, since neither on windows nor on linux parallel installation of 
2.x and 3.x is a problem.


Georg

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Josh Hieronymus]

On Apr 22, 2014 10:55 AM, Benjamin Piwowarski bpiwo...@lyx.org wrote:

 There is not much to do for python 3 compatibility, but still… I attached
the patch this time.

 Benjamin

I have one comment and one question regarding this patch.

The comment: if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up, we
could include the statement from __future__ import print_function in any
file in which we use the print function, as this allows us to use all of
the features of the Python 3.X print function and avoids some potentially
unwanted behavior when printing multiple values. For example, in Python
2.X, print 'Alice', 'Bob' prints the line Alice Bob, but
print('Alice', 'Bob') prints the line ('Alice', 'Bob'), since the
parentheses are not interpreted as enclosing the arguments for a function,
but as demarcating a tuple.

The question: why are we switching from opening files in binary mode to
opening files in text t mode? Was there a reason that we were using
binary mode in the first place?

Josh

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 24/04/14 23:13, Josh Hieronymus a écrit :

The comment: if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up,
we could include the statement from __future__ import print_function
in any file in which we use the print function, as this allows us to use
all of the features of the Python 3.X print function and avoids some
potentially unwanted behavior when printing multiple values.


Stephan, what version of python can be expected on Mac OS X 10.5 and 
10.6? 10.7 has python 2.7.1.


JMarc

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Cyrille Artho]

Mac OS 10.9 (Mavericks) has 2.7.5 installed. So we should keep 2.7.X 
compatibility. I think most people still use 2.7, as 3.X is relatively new 
(in terms of software maintenance/update cycles) and it takes considerable 
effort to switch a project over to 3.X.


Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

Le 24/04/14 23:13, Josh Hieronymus a écrit :

The comment: if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up,
we could include the statement from __future__ import print_function
in any file in which we use the print function, as this allows us to use
all of the features of the Python 3.X print function and avoids some
potentially unwanted behavior when printing multiple values.


Stephan, what version of python can be expected on Mac OS X 10.5 and 10.6?
10.7 has python 2.7.1.

JMarc


--
Regards,
Cyrille Artho - http://artho.com/
As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.
-- Weisert

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Stephan Witt]

Am 25.04.2014 um 01:00 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lasgout...@lyx.org:

 Le 24/04/14 23:13, Josh Hieronymus a écrit :
 The comment: if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up,
 we could include the statement from __future__ import print_function
 in any file in which we use the print function, as this allows us to use
 all of the features of the Python 3.X print function and avoids some
 potentially unwanted behavior when printing multiple values.
 
 Stephan, what version of python can be expected on Mac OS X 10.5 and 10.6? 
 10.7 has python 2.7.1.

On 10.6.8 it's 2.6.1
On 10.5.8 it's 2.5.1

Stephan

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Georg Baum]

Stephan Witt wrote:

> Sorry, you're wrong. My Mac comes with 2.7.2 and I have to install some
> additional software package to use python 3. It's possible, but I don't
> recommend to force users to do so. It's a hassle and I've heard of users
> getting problems with software suddenly broken because of the installation
> of the "alien" python 3 package - this was LyX. But it may be other
> software as well.

OK, this is of course a good reason to continue to support 2.x. I am a bit 
surprised, since neither on windows nor on linux parallel installation of 
2.x and 3.x is a problem.


Georg

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Josh Hieronymus]

On Apr 22, 2014 10:55 AM, "Benjamin Piwowarski"  wrote:
>
> There is not much to do for python 3 compatibility, but still… I attached
the patch this time.
>
> Benjamin

I have one comment and one question regarding this patch.

The comment: if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up, we
could include the statement "from __future__ import print_function" in any
file in which we use the print function, as this allows us to use all of
the features of the Python 3.X print function and avoids some potentially
unwanted behavior when printing multiple values. For example, in Python
2.X, "print 'Alice', 'Bob'" prints the line "Alice Bob", but
"print('Alice', 'Bob')" prints the line "('Alice', 'Bob')", since the
parentheses are not interpreted as enclosing the arguments for a function,
but as demarcating a tuple.

The question: why are we switching from opening files in binary mode to
opening files in text "t" mode? Was there a reason that we were using
binary mode in the first place?

Josh

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 24/04/14 23:13, Josh Hieronymus a écrit :

The comment: if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up,
we could include the statement "from __future__ import print_function"
in any file in which we use the print function, as this allows us to use
all of the features of the Python 3.X print function and avoids some
potentially unwanted behavior when printing multiple values.


Stephan, what version of python can be expected on Mac OS X 10.5 and 
10.6? 10.7 has python 2.7.1.


JMarc

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Cyrille Artho]

Mac OS 10.9 (Mavericks) has 2.7.5 installed. So we should keep 2.7.X 
compatibility. I think most people still use 2.7, as 3.X is relatively new 
(in terms of software maintenance/update cycles) and it takes considerable 
effort to switch a project over to 3.X.


Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

Le 24/04/14 23:13, Josh Hieronymus a écrit :

The comment: if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up,
we could include the statement "from __future__ import print_function"
in any file in which we use the print function, as this allows us to use
all of the features of the Python 3.X print function and avoids some
potentially unwanted behavior when printing multiple values.


Stephan, what version of python can be expected on Mac OS X 10.5 and 10.6?
10.7 has python 2.7.1.

JMarc


--
Regards,
Cyrille Artho - http://artho.com/
As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.
-- Weisert

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Stephan Witt]

Am 25.04.2014 um 01:00 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :

> Le 24/04/14 23:13, Josh Hieronymus a écrit :
>> The comment: if we're only concerned with supporting Python 2.7 and up,
>> we could include the statement "from __future__ import print_function"
>> in any file in which we use the print function, as this allows us to use
>> all of the features of the Python 3.X print function and avoids some
>> potentially unwanted behavior when printing multiple values.
> 
> Stephan, what version of python can be expected on Mac OS X 10.5 and 10.6? 
> 10.7 has python 2.7.1.

On 10.6.8 it's 2.6.1
On 10.5.8 it's 2.5.1

Stephan

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

Hi,

I started to convert to python 3 some central scripts (configure.py a among 
those). Most of the problems are due to print calls, and the remaining problems 
were straightforward to solve. I will push this to master soon. 

Benjamin


 Le 22 avr. 2014 à 06:39, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org a écrit :
 
 José Matos wrote:
 Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
 code works as intended on both versions.
 
 I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June 
 FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
 
 The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would think 
 twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3.
 (I hope x in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)
 
 Pavel

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Pavel Sanda]

Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
 I started to convert to python 3 some central scripts (configure.py a among 
 those). Most of the problems are due to print calls, and the remaining 
 problems were straightforward to solve. I will push this to master soon. 

Benjamin,
such patches should be always sent to mailing list for discussion before 
pushing anything.
Pavel

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Stephan Witt]

Am 22.04.2014 um 06:39 schrieb Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org:

 José Matos wrote:
 Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
 code works as intended on both versions.
 
 I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June 
 FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
 
 The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would think 
 twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3.
 (I hope x in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)
 
 Pavel

I would think twice whether we should drop support for 2.7. 
IMHO, this should be done only if all platforms support 3.x 
without additional user action. I cannot say anything about
the amount of maintenance burden. But the python people do
recommend it, AFAIU.

Stephan

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Guenter Milde]

On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
 José Matos wrote:

 Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
 that the code works as intended on both versions.

 I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
 June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.

 The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
 think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
 in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x =3) for the
next couple of LyX versions:

* There are still a lot of installations, where
  2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.
  
* As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added burden
  is managable.
  
I am also willing to help, if required.

Günter  

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Josh Hieronymus]

On Apr 22, 2014 3:15 AM, Guenter Milde mi...@users.sf.net wrote:

 On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
  José Matos wrote:

  Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
  that the code works as intended on both versions.

  I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
  June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.

  The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
  think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
  in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

 I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x =3) for
the
 next couple of LyX versions:

 * There are still a lot of installations, where
   2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.

 * As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added
burden
   is managable.

 I am also willing to help, if required.

 Günter



For most code, using a common source shouldn't cause problems between the
2.7 and 3.X versions of Python. In certain cases where problems could
arise, such as with print statements, it is possible to write code that is
in the style of 3.X but is still compatible with 2.7 by importing the
proper items from the __future__ module. For other cases, which I believe
to be relatively few, we should be fine for the most part detecting the
version of Python and running version-specific code in those cases. I
imagine that the biggest issues that would arise would probably be caused
by using third-party modules that haven't been updated to work with Python
3.X yet.

Josh

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

Here is a first patch for python 2  3 compatibility of configure.py and 
prefs2prefs.py which are among the most central python scripts.

I did not push the changes because of the “open” function (in prefs2prefs) 
which had to be changed from binary mode to text mode (otherwise, regular 
expressions cannot be applied). I tested them with both python 2 and 3, and did 
not find any problem with this, but would like some feedback before applying 
this patch.
 
Benjamin

On 22 Apr 2014 at 09:15:00 , Guenter Milde (mi...@users.sf.net) wrote:

On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:  
 José Matos wrote:  

 Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee  
 that the code works as intended on both versions.  

 I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid  
 June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.  

 The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would  
 think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x  
 in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)  

I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x =3) for the  
next couple of LyX versions:  

* There are still a lot of installations, where  
2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.  

* As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added burden  
is managable.  

I am also willing to help, if required.  

Günter  

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Richard Heck]

On 04/22/2014 07:44 AM, Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
Here is a first patch for python 2  3 compatibility of configure.py 
and prefs2prefs.py which are among the most central python scripts.


I did not push the changes because of the open function (in 
prefs2prefs) which had to be changed from binary mode to text mode 
(otherwise, regular expressions cannot be applied). I tested them with 
both python 2 and 3, and did not find any problem with this, but would 
like some feedback before applying this patch.


Hmm. Very short patch. (You forgot to attach.)

Richard

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

There is not much to do for python 3 compatibility, but still… I attached the 
patch this time.

Benjamin
 
On 22 Apr 2014 at 12:55:51 , Josh Hieronymus (josh.p.hierony...@gmail.com) 
wrote:


On Apr 22, 2014 3:15 AM, Guenter Milde mi...@users.sf.net wrote:

 On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
  José Matos wrote:

  Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
  that the code works as intended on both versions.

  I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
  June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.

  The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
  think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
  in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

 I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x =3) for the
 next couple of LyX versions:

 * There are still a lot of installations, where
   2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.

 * As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added burden
   is managable.

 I am also willing to help, if required.

 Günter



For most code, using a common source shouldn't cause problems between the 2.7 
and 3.X versions of Python. In certain cases where problems could arise, such 
as with print statements, it is possible to write code that is in the style of 
3.X but is still compatible with 2.7 by importing the proper items from the 
__future__ module. For other cases, which I believe to be relatively few, we 
should be fine for the most part detecting the version of Python and running 
version-specific code in those cases. I imagine that the biggest issues that 
would arise would probably be caused by using third-party modules that haven't 
been updated to work with Python 3.X yet.

Josh


towards-python3.diff
Description: Binary data

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Georg Baum]

Guenter Milde wrote:

 On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
 José Matos wrote:
 
 Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
 that the code works as intended on both versions.
 
 I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
 June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
 
 The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
 think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
 in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

This is the key question IMHO: If 3.2.1 is usable, I'd simply go for python 
3 only, and require at least 3.2.1 (it is old enough). This is no problem on 
any current and not so current linux distribution, not on windows (we ship 
our own python), adn neither on OS X (AFAIK, correct me if I am wrong).

 I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x =3) for
 the next couple of LyX versions:
 
 * There are still a lot of installations, where
   2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.

Which version is default does not matter IMHO: The same code that currently 
selects python 2 if both are avbaiable can be used to select python 3.

 * As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added
 burden
   is managable.

It is still a burden, and if you don't test regularily with both version 
then bugs _will_ occur.


Georg

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 22/04/14 22:19, Georg Baum a écrit :

This is the key question IMHO: If 3.2.1 is usable, I'd simply go for python
3 only, and require at least 3.2.1 (it is old enough). This is no problem on
any current and not so current linux distribution, not on windows (we ship
our own python), adn neither on OS X (AFAIK, correct me if I am wrong).


Mac OS X 10.7 here, I only have python 2.[567]. A few days ago, there 
was only 10.6 on this machine, and I doubt it was better then.


JMarc

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Stephan Witt]

Am 22.04.2014 um 22:19 schrieb Georg Baum georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de:

 Guenter Milde wrote:
 
 On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
 José Matos wrote:
 
 Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
 that the code works as intended on both versions.
 
 I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
 June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
 
 The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
 think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
 in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)
 
 This is the key question IMHO: If 3.2.1 is usable, I'd simply go for python 
 3 only, and require at least 3.2.1 (it is old enough). This is no problem on 
 any current and not so current linux distribution, not on windows (we ship 
 our own python), adn neither on OS X (AFAIK, correct me if I am wrong).

Sorry, you're wrong. My Mac comes with 2.7.2 and I have to install some
additional software package to use python 3. It's possible, but I don't
recommend to force users to do so. It's a hassle and I've heard of users
getting problems with software suddenly broken because of the installation
of the alien python 3 package - this was LyX. But it may be other software
as well.

Stephan

 
 I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x =3) for
 the next couple of LyX versions:
 
 * There are still a lot of installations, where
  2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.
 
 Which version is default does not matter IMHO: The same code that currently 
 selects python 2 if both are avbaiable can be used to select python 3.
 
 * As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added
 burden
  is managable.
 
 It is still a burden, and if you don't test regularily with both version 
 then bugs _will_ occur.
 
 
 Georg
 

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

Hi,

I started to convert to python 3 some central scripts (configure.py a among 
those). Most of the problems are due to print calls, and the remaining problems 
were straightforward to solve. I will push this to master soon. 

Benjamin


> Le 22 avr. 2014 à 06:39, Pavel Sanda  a écrit :
> 
> José Matos wrote:
>> Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
>> code works as intended on both versions.
>> 
>> I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June 
>> FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
> 
> The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would think 
> twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3.
> (I hope x in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)
> 
> Pavel

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Pavel Sanda]

Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
> I started to convert to python 3 some central scripts (configure.py a among 
> those). Most of the problems are due to print calls, and the remaining 
> problems were straightforward to solve. I will push this to master soon. 

Benjamin,
such patches should be always sent to mailing list for discussion before 
pushing anything.
Pavel

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Stephan Witt]

Am 22.04.2014 um 06:39 schrieb Pavel Sanda :

> José Matos wrote:
>> Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
>> code works as intended on both versions.
>> 
>> I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June 
>> FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
> 
> The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would think 
> twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3.
> (I hope x in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)
> 
> Pavel

I would think twice whether we should drop support for 2.7. 
IMHO, this should be done only if all platforms support 3.x 
without additional user action. I cannot say anything about
the amount of maintenance burden. But the python people do
recommend it, AFAIU.

Stephan

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Guenter Milde]

On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> José Matos wrote:

>> Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
>> that the code works as intended on both versions.

>> I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
>> June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.

> The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
> think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
> in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x >=3) for the
next couple of LyX versions:

* There are still a lot of installations, where
  2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.
  
* As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added burden
  is managable.
  
I am also willing to help, if required.

Günter  

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Josh Hieronymus]

On Apr 22, 2014 3:15 AM, "Guenter Milde"  wrote:
>
> On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > José Matos wrote:
>
> >> Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
> >> that the code works as intended on both versions.
>
> >> I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
> >> June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
>
> > The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
> > think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
> > in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)
>
> I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x >=3) for
the
> next couple of LyX versions:
>
> * There are still a lot of installations, where
>   2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.
>
> * As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added
burden
>   is managable.
>
> I am also willing to help, if required.
>
> Günter
>
>

For most code, using a common source shouldn't cause problems between the
2.7 and 3.X versions of Python. In certain cases where problems could
arise, such as with print statements, it is possible to write code that is
in the style of 3.X but is still compatible with 2.7 by importing the
proper items from the __future__ module. For other cases, which I believe
to be relatively few, we should be fine for the most part detecting the
version of Python and running version-specific code in those cases. I
imagine that the biggest issues that would arise would probably be caused
by using third-party modules that haven't been updated to work with Python
3.X yet.

Josh

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

Here is a first patch for python 2 & 3 compatibility of configure.py and 
prefs2prefs.py which are among the most central python scripts.

I did not push the changes because of the “open” function (in prefs2prefs) 
which had to be changed from binary mode to text mode (otherwise, regular 
expressions cannot be applied). I tested them with both python 2 and 3, and did 
not find any problem with this, but would like some feedback before applying 
this patch.
 
Benjamin

On 22 Apr 2014 at 09:15:00 , Guenter Milde (mi...@users.sf.net) wrote:

On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:  
> José Matos wrote:  

>> Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee  
>> that the code works as intended on both versions.  

>> I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid  
>> June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.  

> The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would  
> think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x  
> in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)  

I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x >=3) for the  
next couple of LyX versions:  

* There are still a lot of installations, where  
2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.  

* As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added burden  
is managable.  

I am also willing to help, if required.  

Günter  

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Richard Heck]

On 04/22/2014 07:44 AM, Benjamin Piwowarski wrote:
Here is a first patch for python 2 & 3 compatibility of configure.py 
and prefs2prefs.py which are among the most central python scripts.


I did not push the changes because of the "open" function (in 
prefs2prefs) which had to be changed from binary mode to text mode 
(otherwise, regular expressions cannot be applied). I tested them with 
both python 2 and 3, and did not find any problem with this, but would 
like some feedback before applying this patch.


Hmm. Very short patch. (You forgot to attach.)

Richard

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Benjamin Piwowarski]

There is not much to do for python 3 compatibility, but still… I attached the 
patch this time.

Benjamin
 
On 22 Apr 2014 at 12:55:51 , Josh Hieronymus (josh.p.hierony...@gmail.com) 
wrote:


On Apr 22, 2014 3:15 AM, "Guenter Milde"  wrote:
>
> On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > José Matos wrote:
>
> >> Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
> >> that the code works as intended on both versions.
>
> >> I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
> >> June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
>
> > The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
> > think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
> > in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)
>
> I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x >=3) for the
> next couple of LyX versions:
>
> * There are still a lot of installations, where
>   2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.
>
> * As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added burden
>   is managable.
>
> I am also willing to help, if required.
>
> Günter
>
>

For most code, using a common source shouldn't cause problems between the 2.7 
and 3.X versions of Python. In certain cases where problems could arise, such 
as with print statements, it is possible to write code that is in the style of 
3.X but is still compatible with 2.7 by importing the proper items from the 
__future__ module. For other cases, which I believe to be relatively few, we 
should be fine for the most part detecting the version of Python and running 
version-specific code in those cases. I imagine that the biggest issues that 
would arise would probably be caused by using third-party modules that haven't 
been updated to work with Python 3.X yet.

Josh


towards-python3.diff
Description: Binary data

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Georg Baum]

Guenter Milde wrote:

> On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> José Matos wrote:
> 
>>> Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
>>> that the code works as intended on both versions.
> 
>>> I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
>>> June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
> 
>> The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
>> think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
>> in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

This is the key question IMHO: If 3.2.1 is usable, I'd simply go for python 
3 only, and require at least 3.2.1 (it is old enough). This is no problem on 
any current and not so current linux distribution, not on windows (we ship 
our own python), adn neither on OS X (AFAIK, correct me if I am wrong).

> I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x >=3) for
> the next couple of LyX versions:
> 
> * There are still a lot of installations, where
>   2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.

Which version is default does not matter IMHO: The same code that currently 
selects python 2 if both are avbaiable can be used to select python 3.

> * As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added
> burden
>   is managable.

It is still a burden, and if you don't test regularily with both version 
then bugs _will_ occur.


Georg

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 22/04/14 22:19, Georg Baum a écrit :

This is the key question IMHO: If 3.2.1 is usable, I'd simply go for python
3 only, and require at least 3.2.1 (it is old enough). This is no problem on
any current and not so current linux distribution, not on windows (we ship
our own python), adn neither on OS X (AFAIK, correct me if I am wrong).


Mac OS X 10.7 here, I only have python 2.[567]. A few days ago, there 
was only 10.6 on this machine, and I doubt it was better then.


JMarc

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Stephan Witt]

Am 22.04.2014 um 22:19 schrieb Georg Baum :

> Guenter Milde wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-04-22, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>>> José Matos wrote:
>> 
 Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee
 that the code works as intended on both versions.
>> 
 I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid
 June FWIW) but I would like to start the discussion here.
>> 
>>> The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would
>>> think twice whether we should simply switch just to python 3. (I hope x
>>> in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)
> 
> This is the key question IMHO: If 3.2.1 is usable, I'd simply go for python 
> 3 only, and require at least 3.2.1 (it is old enough). This is no problem on 
> any current and not so current linux distribution, not on windows (we ship 
> our own python), adn neither on OS X (AFAIK, correct me if I am wrong).

Sorry, you're wrong. My Mac comes with 2.7.2 and I have to install some
additional software package to use python 3. It's possible, but I don't
recommend to force users to do so. It's a hassle and I've heard of users
getting problems with software suddenly broken because of the installation
of the "alien" python 3 package - this was LyX. But it may be other software
as well.

Stephan

> 
>> I also vote for keeping compatibility with both 2.7 and 3.x (x >=3) for
>> the next couple of LyX versions:
>> 
>> * There are still a lot of installations, where
>>  2.7 (or older) is the default Python version.
> 
> Which version is default does not matter IMHO: The same code that currently 
> selects python 2 if both are avbaiable can be used to select python 3.
> 
>> * As we can have one common source for both major versions, the added
>> burden
>>  is managable.
> 
> It is still a burden, and if you don't test regularily with both version 
> then bugs _will_ occur.
> 
> 
> Georg
> 

Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

Hi all,
I suggest to update the python code used by lyx to support both python 
2 and python 3 with the same code.

For those who (did not) read the summit notes from Guido:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/147048

There is one point particularly that I noticed:
- The recommended and least painful way to develop for Python 2 and 3 is 
definitely to use a single source that runs under both without translation; we 
no longer recommend auto-generating Python 3 compatible source code using 2to3, 
for a variety of reasons. Several people attested that single-source has worked 
well for them; Mercurial is using the 2to3 approach but they're not too happy 
with it.

We have already a ticket opened for this:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9006

Also of notice for some of the points raised in the ticket regarding python 2.7 
support:
- We should make an effort to publicize that we're NOT sunsetting Python 2.7 
just yet; support will continue (hopefully with ample support from distro 
vendors), and someone should update PEP 373. (Unclear what the new EOL is but 
we should definitely rescind the currently published schedule.)

As you can see here:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/
The End Of Life date (EOL, sunset date) for Python 2.7 has been moved five 
years into the future, to 2020.

So IMHO I suggest code that is able to support both python 2 and python 3.

Before proceeding here there two related issues that we should discuss:

What is the minimum python 2 version that we will support?

What is the minimum python 3 version that we will support?

My suggestions are python 2.7 and python 3.3 as the minimal versions. Since I 
suggest to support both versions that means that you only need to have one of 
them available.

Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
code works as intended on both versions.

I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June FWIW) 
but I would like to start the discussion here.

Regards,
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Pavel Sanda]

José Matos wrote:
 Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
 code works as intended on both versions.
 
 I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June FWIW) 
 but I would like to start the discussion here.

The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would think twice 
whether we should simply switch just to python 3.
(I hope x in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

Pavel

Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

Hi all,
I suggest to update the python code used by lyx to support both python 
2 and python 3 with the same code.

For those who (did not) read the summit notes from Guido:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/147048

There is one point particularly that I noticed:
"- The recommended and least painful way to develop for Python 2 and 3 is 
definitely to use a single source that runs under both without translation; we 
no longer recommend auto-generating Python 3 compatible source code using 2to3, 
for a variety of reasons. Several people attested that single-source has worked 
well for them; Mercurial is using the 2to3 approach but they're not too happy 
with it."

We have already a ticket opened for this:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9006

Also of notice for some of the points raised in the ticket regarding python 2.7 
support:
"- We should make an effort to publicize that we're NOT sunsetting Python 2.7 
just yet; support will continue (hopefully with ample support from distro 
vendors), and someone should update PEP 373. (Unclear what the new EOL is but 
we should definitely rescind the currently published schedule.)"

As you can see here:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/
"The End Of Life date (EOL, sunset date) for Python 2.7 has been moved five 
years into the future, to 2020."

So IMHO I suggest code that is able to support both python 2 and python 3.

Before proceeding here there two related issues that we should discuss:

What is the minimum python 2 version that we will support?

What is the minimum python 3 version that we will support?

My suggestions are python 2.7 and python 3.3 as the minimal versions. Since I 
suggest to support both versions that means that you only need to have one of 
them available.

Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
code works as intended on both versions.

I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June FWIW) 
but I would like to start the discussion here.

Regards,
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Pavel Sanda]

José Matos wrote:
> Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
> code works as intended on both versions.
> 
> I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June FWIW) 
> but I would like to start the discussion here.

The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would think twice 
whether we should simply switch just to python 3.
(I hope x in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

Pavel