On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > under 2.5 or 2.6. This is not possible with 3.0. You can't write 2.5
> > code and run it under 3.0.
>
> I don't think anyone proposed writing 2.5 code to run on 3.0.
I meant to write 2.6, not 2.5.
> It really does appe
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is, to be blunt, wishful thinking.
Funny. 8 years of Python development experience is wishful thinking.
Whaddayouknow.
I'm done now.
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 5
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Complicated? Really? On extra option, and an optional print when you
> emit a line? And if you don't read the 2to3 code when debugging, or
> don't consider yourself smart, I'd say that's your problem. Seriously,
> the pdb
OK. 54 long messages into it, the argument is stuck at:
1. But 3.0 code is different.
2. But 3.0 shouldn't gratuitously break 2.6 code.
So make u"sting" a deprecated structure with a warning and kill it in
3.1. Why write a novel about it? Just make what programmers expect
to happen happen.
I haven't read that thread yet (and probably never will), but I want
to draw a line in the sand. In order to avoid a slippery slope, I'm
not putting backwards compatibility in 3.0 for stuff we want killed
*except* for certain exceptions that 2to3 can't fix. (The only one I
am aware of being % forma
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't read that thread yet (and probably never will), but I want
> to draw a line in the sand. In order to avoid a slippery slope, I'm
> not putting backwards compatibility in 3.0 for stuff we want killed
> *excep
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I haven't read that thread yet (and probably never will), but I want
> > to draw a line in the sand. In order to avoid a slippery slope,
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> Thanks; the __future__ import in 2.6 sounds great.
I'm working on it. However it's not as easy as we first thought.
Christian
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> > Thanks; the __future__ import in 2.6 sounds great.
>
> I'm working on it. However it's not as easy as we first thought.
What's the problem?
>
>
> Christian
>
> ___
Benjamin Peterson schrieb:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Guido van Rossum schrieb:
>>> Thanks; the __future__ import in 2.6 sounds great.
>> I'm working on it. However it's not as easy as we first thought.
>
> What's the problem?
Since 2.4 P
>> Thanks; the __future__ import in 2.6 sounds great.
>
> I'm working on it. However it's not as easy as we first thought.
BTW, did you see parser.c:future_hack?
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org
> Since 2.4 Python uses the AST tree to access the future flags. But the
> string unicode literals require the information before the AST tree is
> created.
"We" should have considered that 2.5 still had to support future
statements in the parser, for the with_statement, so I think this would
hav
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I misunderstood you as suggesting
> that the debugger showed the orginal 2.6 code and not the the 3.0
> code.
>
> But this would more or less mean that 2to3 needs to compile the 2.6
> code directly to pyc-files, as I understand it.
Either that or Python would have to gr
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
>> Since 2.4 Python uses the AST tree to access the future flags. But the
>> string unicode literals require the information before the AST tree is
>> created.
>
> "We" should have considered that 2.5 still had to support future
> statements in the parser, for the with_st
Barry> All the gory details are documented here:
Barry> http://www.python.org/dev/bazaar
Thanks. I checked out, made a branch named test3, changed Makefile.pre.in
to have a test3 target, checked it in, then tried to push it:
% pwd
/Users/skip/src/python-bzr/test3
% bzr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Barry> All the gory details are documented here:
>
> Barry> http://www.python.org/dev/bazaar
>
> Thanks. I checked out, made a branch named test3, changed Makefile.pre.in
> to have a test3 target, checked it in, then tried to push it:
>
> % pwd
>
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
>
> >> Since 2.4 Python uses the AST tree to access the future flags. But the
> >> string unicode literals require the information before the AST tree is
> >> created.
> >
> > "We" should ha
17 matches
Mail list logo
