On 21-Jun-09, at 11:59 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: >> Can't really say at this point, but it is the suggested path to >> python-3. > > OTOH, I don't find the python 3 "official" transition story very > convincing. I have tried to gather all the information I could find, > both on the python wiki and from transitions stories. To support both > python 2 and 3, the suggestion is to use the 2to3 script, but it is > painfully slow for big packages like numpy. And there ave very few > stories for porting python 3 C extensions.
It's the suggested path for python packages in general but I wonder about how readily this advice applies to packages that are so heavily C-dependent. There was talk of using Cython to ease the transition/ maintenance of 2.x and 3.x branches, since it abstracts away the choice of old-style buffer interface vs. PEP3118-style. Perhaps Dag Sverre has something to say on this topic? > Also, there does not seem to be any advantages for python 3 for > scientific people ? There's some new stuff with regard to native arbitrary-precision arithmetic, which might affect some people, but I agree on the whole. David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
