At 03:47 PM 1/16/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Oh, as long as we're talking adding features to 2.6 I'm fine. I
>thought you were proposing changes to the plans for 3.0, as in your
>proposal" regarding the dict view API.
Nah, that was a side tangent, combined with a partial lack of understan
At 10:23 PM 1/16/2007 +, Steve Holden wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>At 08:52 PM 1/16/2007 +, Steve Holden wrote:
>>>I foresee that many people would be happy restricting their 2.X source
>>>slightly to ensure perfect translation into (working, no necessarily
>>>optimal) 3.0. Under those c
On 1/16/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:18 PM 1/16/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >On 1/16/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The idea here being that, once 2.6 is widely-enough deployed that it can
> > > be
> > > assumed as a base for one's users, you
At 03:18 PM 1/16/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>On 1/16/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The idea here being that, once 2.6 is widely-enough deployed that it can be
> > assumed as a base for one's users, you can simply run the translator once,
> > do any cleanup, and then hav
On 1/16/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:52 PM 1/16/2007 +, Steve Holden wrote:
> >I foresee that many people would be happy restricting their 2.X source
> >slightly to ensure perfect translation into (working, no necessarily
> >optimal) 3.0. Under those circumstances the 2
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 08:52 PM 1/16/2007 +, Steve Holden wrote:
>> I foresee that many people would be happy restricting their 2.X source
>> slightly to ensure perfect translation into (working, no necessarily
>> optimal) 3.0. Under those circumstances the 2to3 tool wouldn't
>> necessarily
At 08:52 PM 1/16/2007 +, Steve Holden wrote:
>I foresee that many people would be happy restricting their 2.X source
>slightly to ensure perfect translation into (working, no necessarily
>optimal) 3.0. Under those circumstances the 2to3 tool wouldn't
>necessarily have to translate all valid 2.X
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> Outside of a compatibility module, we can decide to leave Py2.6 unmolested by
>> Py3.0, so I can stop being cranky.
>
> If you're feeling cranky this early in the new year, maybe you should
> look for reaso
On 1/12/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ISTM, we can decide to limit 3.0's impact to a single compatibility module,
> essentially as an alternate set of builtins.
>
> import __new_builtins__
> for name in 'bytes dict coerce'.split(): # list any new features you want
> to sup
ISTM, we can decide to limit 3.0's impact to a single compatibility module,
essentially as an alternate set of builtins.
import __new_builtins__
for name in 'bytes dict coerce'.split(): # list any new features you want
to support
setattr(__builtins__, name, getattr(__new_builtins__, nam
10 matches
Mail list logo
