On 10/7/08, Mark Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # This is a Python 3.x script to execute a python 2.x script by 2to3'ing it.
> import sys
> from lib2to3.refactor import RefactoringTool, get_fixers_from_package
>
> fixers = get_fixers_from_package('lib2to3.fixes')
> options = dict(doctests_onl
> at such a script, which I promptly stopped looking at as soon as it
> worked
Which is quite obvious really given that:
> # nuke ourselves from argv
> del sys.argv[1]
is removing the wrong value!
Mark
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.
> > * Better support for 2to3 in distutils (specifically, the support in
> > build_py is stale, plus 'build_scripts' and 'install_data' should
> > convert
> > .py files to py3k syntax.)
>
> Please do create a bug report for that. It sounds like it's easy to
> fix.
Yeah, build_py is fairly easy to
[when 2 mailing lists are not enough... :-]
> I'm seeing that people are just starting to download and play with 3.0.
> I expect that we'll start getting more feedback on conversion issues
+1 from this direction too. pywin32 has recently started looking seriously
at py3k, and while things are in
> Do we need the full two weeks between rc's?
If they are just other names for betas, yes. If they are true
release candidates (in the sense of "we really want to release this
as-is unless somebody tells us why this is a really bad idea"), then
no.
> Or is it too much of a pain
> to cut releases
> More specifically, I think 2to3 is shaping up well. pywin32 is taking the
> approach of "port where possible, but keep in py2x syntax and convert at
> 'setup.py' time" and this is working out fairly well
I can't say how glad I am that you say that. It supports lib2to3 being a
proper library, de
