On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:11:45 +0200, Simon Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Phil Thompson wrote: >> Major transitions (Qt3 => Qt4, Python2 => Python3) should be considered >> as >> opportunities for rewrites. They should not be treated as "how can I get >> from one to the other with as few changes as possible". > > I thought the way the Python guys handled Python 3 was very good. Just > break what (really) needs to be broken and clear the way for future > enhancements. Although porting of applications is still needed, they've > stayed away from trivial and stylistic 'fixes' to Python and the libs > which bring a lot more porting work for little real world gain. Things > like changing the naming of classes and modules names etc fall into the > stylistic change category in my book.
I completely agree. > I hope Phil can stick to the really needed stuff. Porting stuff from > Qt/KDE 3 to 4 has proven to be draining work which I hope to avoid > having to do again in the near future. Which is why I say don't port, rewrite. Phil _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list PyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
