[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The looming Python 3(000) monster

Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar
> <abu_hurayrah hidayahonline org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:40 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>>> 2008/12/5 Toshio Kuratomi <a badger gmail com>:
>>> Maybe I am oversimplifying. But what about using 2.6+ (<3.0) and
>>> ensure that all code is compatible with 3. And still have 3 in
>>> parallel for those who want it. So we target 2.6+ , but have 3.0 there
>>> to ensure everything would work with it, and for early adopters/devs
>>> --
>>> Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
>>> ( www.pembo13.com )
>> It would be very hard to write 2.6 code that is completely compatible
>> with 3.0, because 3.0 has changed many fundamental language constructs,
>> including even the "print" statement, which in 3.0 is a function (syntax
>> change).
> I believe 'print' is a poor example as it is very easy to fix. Are
> there other, more problematic ones?
Yes, print is a poor example for the 2.6=>3.0 compatibility test (it is
a good example for 2.5=>3.0 compatibility, though, as there's no way to
redefine a keyword from within python.)

The problem area that I'm most aware of is unicode handling.  There have
been some major improvements to this that make it more sane.  However,
there's also been some regressions.  Some of those regressions lead to
code that looks like it should work but silently fail to do what's
expected on *nix in some corner cases.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]