Ah. I'm glad I brought it up. When the time comes to port my code, I'll try skipping step 1 first.
-- Daryl On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think you misunderstand the role of 2.6. See the seven steps under > > "The recommended development model for a project that needs to support > > Python 2.6 and 3.0 simultaneously..." in > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/#compatibility-and-transition. > > Step 1 reads "Port your project to Python 2.6." > > I believe this recommendation is flawed. It assumes that it is acceptable > that you break 2.5-and-earlier compatibility in the process of porting to > 2.6. > This, in turn, is assumed because it was considered impractical to have > code that runs on 2.3, yet 2to3 could still fix it correctly. Again in turn, > this assumption results from the actual lack of opportunity to try out any > other strategy. > > At the PyCon sprint, I tried a different strategy for Django, and it seems > to work fairly well. > > The authors of the PEP certainly did not mean to say that 2to3 can't possibly > create correct output if applied to source that also runs on 2.5. > > Regards, > Martin > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
