Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 386 and PEP 345

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 16:08, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > Hi, > > I think we've reached a consensus on those two PEPs. > > Although, there's one last point that was forgotten in the discussions > : I've introduced "rc" in the pre-releases markers, so PEP 386 is > compatible with Python's own version sch

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 386 and PEP 345

> Hi, > > I think we've reached a consensus on those two PEPs. > > Although, there's one last point that was forgotten in the discussions > : I've introduced "rc" in the pre-releases markers, so PEP 386 is > compatible with Python's own version scheme. "rc" comes right after > "c" in the sorting.

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

Hi Ian, > The only workable workflow I've seen people propose for maintaining a > single > codebase with compatibility across both 2 and 3 is to use such tricks, > with > aliases to suppress some 2to3 updates when they are inappropriate, so that > you can run 2to3 on install and have a single can

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

Hi Martin, > ... but in the long run, starting now will have saved you a lot of > pressure in the long run, and stop users from switching away from > your packages because of lack of Python 3 support. In a production situation it works the other way around. If there's an application that requires

[Python-Dev] PEP 386 and PEP 345

Hi, I think we've reached a consensus on those two PEPs. Although, there's one last point that was forgotten in the discussions : I've introduced "rc" in the pre-releases markers, so PEP 386 is compatible with Python's own version scheme. "rc" comes right after "c" in the sorting. It's slightly

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

> Just to clarify, the black magic I'm referring to is things like: > > try: > unicode_ = unicode > except NameError: > unicode_ = str > > and some other aliases like this that are unambiguous and which 2to3 > won't touch (if you write them correctly). If the porting guide noted > all th

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > > > It's not even that easy -- libraries can't apply patches for Python 3 > > compatibility as they usually break Python 2 compatibility.  Potentially > > libraries could apply patches that make a codebase 2to3 ready, but from > > what I'v

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

> No-op constructions like 'bytes("")' could help for older versions of > Python, though. A very, very small runtime shim could provide > support for these, if 2to3 could be told about it somehow. You actually don't *need* 2to3 support for that - bytes("") can work in either version: 2.x: def by

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

> It's not even that easy -- libraries can't apply patches for Python 3 > compatibility as they usually break Python 2 compatibility. Potentially > libraries could apply patches that make a codebase 2to3 ready, but from > what I've seen that's more black magic than straight forward updating, > as

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 21:24, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > It seems like this is a problem to be addressed, then.  Let's get the "black > magic" to be better specified and documented. > is an interesting start on > this, but it would be better if t

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

On Jan 5, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: > It's not even that easy -- libraries can't apply patches for Python 3 > compatibility as they usually break Python 2 compatibility. Potentially > libraries could apply patches that make a codebase 2to3 ready, but from what > I've seen that's mor

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Brian Curtin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:10, Juan Fernando Herrera J. > wrote: > >> How about a new python 3 release with (possibly partial) backwards >> compatibility with 2.6? I'm a big 3 fan, but I'm dismayed at the way major >> software hasn't been port

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 17:10, Juan Fernando Herrera J. wrote: > I'm eager to use 3, but paradoxically, > the 3 release makes me rather stuck with 2.6. Excuse me if this has been > suggested in the past. Yes. Python 3 is not what you want to use today if you write applications. If you write librar

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Michael Foord wrote: > On 05/01/2010 16:10, Juan Fernando Herrera J. wrote: > > How about a new python 3 release with (possibly partial) backwards > compatibility with 2.6? I'm a big 3 fan, but I'm dismayed at the way major > software hasn't been ported to it. I'm

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:10, Juan Fernando Herrera J. wrote: > How about a new python 3 release with (possibly partial) backwards > compatibility with 2.6? I'm a big 3 fan, but I'm dismayed at the way major > software hasn't been ported to it. I'm eager to use 3, but paradoxically, > the 3 releas

Re: [Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

On 05/01/2010 16:10, Juan Fernando Herrera J. wrote: How about a new python 3 release with (possibly partial) backwards compatibility with 2.6? I'm a big 3 fan, but I'm dismayed at the way major software hasn't been ported to it. I'm eager to use 3, but paradoxically, the 3 release makes me rat

[Python-Dev] Suggestion: new 3 release with backwards compatibility

How about a new python 3 release with (possibly partial) backwards compatibility with 2.6? I'm a big 3 fan, but I'm dismayed at the way major software hasn't been ported to it. I'm eager to use 3, but paradoxically, the 3 release makes me rather stuck with 2.6. Excuse me if this has been suggested