Leif Walsh wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 8:38 PM, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Instead of a shebang which depends on the shell, maybe a version
>> specifier
>> of some sort could be used?
>>
>> # -*- pyversions: 2.5, 2.6 -*-
>>
>> So if a python 3.x detects a too low a version, maybe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Leif> There is already an idiom with other packages (pygtk etc.) that
> Leif> suggests syntax like
>
> Leif> try:
> Leif> python.require('3.1')
> Leif> except:
> Leif> print('Some warning about version incompatibility')
> Leif> exit
Leif Walsh wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 8:38 PM, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Instead of a shebang which depends on the shell, maybe a version specifier
>> of some sort could be used?
>>
>> # -*- pyversions: 2.5, 2.6 -*-
>>
>> So if a python 3.x detects a too low a version, maybe it
Greg Ewing writes:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> > I don't see any need to shorten "python3.0" to "python3".
>
> I was thinking that "python3" would be the 3.x series
> equivalent of what "python" is now, i.e. installation
> of 3.0 would create links called "python3.0" and (unless
> yo
Nicko van Someren wrote:
Do we really want set literals at all, given that set(...) exists?
If we are going to have one then, it seems to make sense to have
both. If we are going to have both, I would rather that they generate
the same type of set.
Maybe the postings crossed in the ether
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Leif> There is already an idiom with other packages (pygtk etc.) that
> > Leif> suggests syntax like
> >
> > Leif> try:
> > Leif> python.require('3.1')
> > Leif> except:
> > Leif> print('Some warning about version incompatibility')
> >
On Feb 2, 2008 10:58 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Leif> There is already an idiom with other packages (pygtk etc.) that
> Leif> suggests syntax like
>
> Leif> try:
> Leif> python.require('3.1')
> Leif> except:
> Leif> print('Some warning about version incompat
>> It won't work in this case. Compilation of the module might well
>> fail because of Python2/Python3 syntax differences.
Leif> Well, then this isn't something to be implemented for python 2,
Leif> it's something to consider for python 3 and greater.
It won't work there eithe
> Leif Walsh wrote:
>>try:
>>python.require('3.1')
A run-time test isn't sufficient, because not all 2.x
code will even parse in 3.x. Something syntactic is
needed.
--
Greg
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> If somebody's introduction to Python is Python 3, I don't see why
> they'd want to go back except for a specific app.
A specified app seems quite a likely reason to me. And
if they've gotten used to "python" taking them to python3.x,
they'll get a surprise when it sud
On Jan 24, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 9:47 AM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2008, at 4:30 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti wrote:
>>> I am not sure what you mean by "cPickle.Pickler and
>>> cPickle.Unpickler
>>> subclassible in the same way
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> It won't work in this case. Compilation of the module might well
> >> fail because of Python2/Python3 syntax differences.
>
> Leif> Well, then this isn't something to be implemented for python 2,
> Leif> it's something to consider for python 3 and g
On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 8:59 PM, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know what that means. I don't know that Jython or
>>> IronPython
>>> need to support cPickle. Honestly, I'd be happy to se
On Feb 3, 2008 1:37 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 2008 8:59 PM, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't know what that means. I don't know that Jython or
Whoops, that was meant to go to the list. Sorry.
On 03/02/2008, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we need a solution, not a start. While the stdlib is bloated, it
> is being trimmed down in Py3K already. If you want to trim more then
> push for stuff to be removed on a module-to-module
Larry Hastings wrote:
> When compiling a mutable type with an immutable equivalent, does Python
> generate create-empty-object/insert-each-item bytecodes, or does it
> create an immutable constant then cast it to the appropriate type?
Last time I looked, for lists and dicts it creates an empty
o
Greg Ewing writes:
> I just think the python2 and python3 worlds should be
> kept separate by default, seeing as there are both forwards
> and backwards incompatibilities.
I'm afraid that's exactly what will happen: the two worlds will tend
to be *kept* separate despite the common ground.
>
Brett Cannon writes:
> On Feb 3, 2008 1:37 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the standard library is bloated. I'd much prefer to see a
> > leaner standard library that really provides features that are close
> > to the language and provide a packaging system that make it e
18 matches
Mail list logo
