Stupid question first. When running 2to3 on the example CGI code, why
would it throw back the following. Is this indicative of anything else
that needs to be changed to satisfy some Python 3 thing. The list()
bit seems redundant, but I don't know what the other stuff is about.
--- xx.py (original)
+++ xx.py (refactored)
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
return u.encode(enc, esc).decode('iso-8859-1')
def run_with_cgi(application):
- environ = {k: wsgi_string(v) for k,v in os.environ.items()}
+ environ = {k: wsgi_string(v) for k,v in list(os.environ.items())}
environ['wsgi.input'] = sys.stdin
environ['wsgi.errors'] = sys.stderr
environ['wsgi.version'] = (1, 0)
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
try:
if headers_sent:
# Re-raise original exception if headers sent
- raise exc_info[0], exc_info[1], exc_info[2]
+ raise exc_info[0](exc_info[1]).with_traceback(exc_info[2])
finally:
exc_info = None # avoid dangling circular ref
elif headers_set:
On 7 January 2011 16:58, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:47 PM, James Y Knight <f...@fuhm.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 2011, at 11:30 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>>> At 09:51 AM 1/7/2011 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>> Is that the last thing or do I need to go spend some time and write my
>>>> own CGI/WSGI bridge for Python 3 based on my own Python 2 one I have
>>>> lying around and just do some final validation checks with a parallel
>>>> implementation as a sanity check to make sure we got everything? This
>>>> might be a good idea anyway.
>>>
>>> It would. In the meantime, though, I've checked in the two-line change to
>>> add .buffer in. ;-)
>>
>> So does that mean PEP 3333 can be accepted now?
>
> TBH I've totally lost track. Hopefully PJE and Graham can tell you...
>
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
>
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG@python.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
