On 16 December 2014 at 16:03, Ben Finney wrote:
> Alex Gaynor writes:
>
>> Ben Finney benfinney.id.au> writes:
>>
>> > Rather, the claim is that *if* one's code base doesn't migrate to
>> > Python 3, it will be decreasingly supported by the PSF and the
>> > Python community at large.
>>
>> The P
On 16 December 2014 at 13:08, Mark Roberts wrote:
> The whole situation is made worse because I *KNOW* that Python 3 is a better
> language than Python 2, but that it doesn't *MATTER* because Python 2 is
> what people are - and will be - using for the foreseeable future. It's
> impractical to drop
Alex Gaynor writes:
> Ben Finney benfinney.id.au> writes:
>
> > Rather, the claim is that *if* one's code base doesn't migrate to
> > Python 3, it will be decreasingly supported by the PSF and the
> > Python community at large.
>
> The PSF doesn't support any versions of Python. We have effectiv
Ben Finney benfinney.id.au> writes:
>
> Rather, the claim is that *if* one's code base doesn't migrate to Python
> 3, it will be decreasingly supported by the PSF and the Python community
> at large.
>
The PSF doesn't support any versions of Python. We have effectively no
involvement in the de
Mark Roberts writes:
> So, I'm the guy that used the "hate" word in relation to writing 2/3
> compliant code. And really, as a library maintainer/writer I do hate
> writing 2/3 compatible code.
You're unlikely to get disagreement on that. I certainly concur.
The catch is, at the moment it's bet
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Chris Barker
wrote:
> Are you primarily writing packages for others to use? if so, then yes. But
> I wonder how many people are in that camp? Don't most of us spend most of
> our time writing our own purpose-built code?
>
> That might be a nice thing to see in a
On Dec 14, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Barry, Petr, any of the other folks working on distro level C extension
>ports, perhaps one of you would be willing to consider an update to the C
>extension porting guide to be more in line with Brett's latest version of
>the Python level porting
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
> OK, this seems weird to me:
>
> For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
> that’s
> with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+)
>
> ouch.
>
> However the way it "used" to work
> is that the n
OK, this seems weird to me:
For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
> that’s
> with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+)
ouch.
> However the way it "used" to work
> is that the newest version, with all the new features, would quickly become
> the
