+1 on ending with 2.6.
I'm the maintainer of 3rd party Python 3-only packages and have ported a few
modules that we needed with some help from the 2to3 tool. It's really not a
big deal - and Py3 really is a massive improvement.
The main thing holding back the community are lazy and/or obstinate
2009/11/3 Brett Cannon :
> I'm afraid there is some FUD going around here, which is
> understandable since no one wants to burn a ton of time on something
> that will be difficult or take a lot of time. But I have not heard
> anyone in this email thread (or anywhere for that matter) say that
> they
>>> I wouldn't say that. For instance, I'm just starting a refactoring that
>>> will
>>> result in getmail v.5, but I need to target Python 2.5 and up, so there's
>>> essentially no way the code will run in Python 3.x (as another list member
>>> posted).
>> That's a common myth. It is very well p
s...@pobox.com schrieb:
> Martin> And if *2.6* becomes the last of the 2.x series?
>
> With all due respect, I don't think you can make that decision now. The
> time to have stated 2.6 would be the end of the 2.x line was when 2.6 was
> released. At that point instead of opening up the trunk
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:19:38 am Greg Ewing wrote:
> Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > Personally, I'm for the iteration spec in a lot of ways.
> >
> > Firstly, a .get()/.pick() that always returns the same element
> > feels horrible. Is there anyone here who _likes_ it?
>
> It doesn't sound very useful to
James Y Knight wrote:
If that happens, it's not true that there's *nowhere* to go. A solution
would be to discard 3.x as a failed experiment, take everything that is
useful from it and port it to 2.x, and simply continue development from
the last 2.x release. And from there, features can be de
On 4/11/2009 4:35 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
Good move, +1.
Cheers,
Mark
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 12:28:47PM -0500, Arc Riley wrote:
>
> The main thing holding back the community are lazy and/or obstinate package
> maintainers. If they spent half the time they've put into complaining about
> Py3 into actually working to upgrade their code they'd be done now.
The main
+1. There are no compelling language changes on the horizon ("yield
from" is nice but not necessary). I see the main benefit of a
moratorium as social rather than technical by encouraging people to
work on the lib instead of the language. Plus, I'd gladly proxy my
vote to any one of the three PE
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Are you going to gauge it roughly from python-dev feedback, or should
> we take a more formal vote on python-committers once the PEP has
> settled?
I'll not take a formal vote unless the discussion suggests there's a
lot of pushback. So far I
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Larry Bugbee wrote:
> This is my problem to solve... I work with a lot of [non-production] crypto
> where byte strings are a normal way of manipulating and storing keys and
> other artifacts. Under Python2 I have few/no Unicode issues. With
> Python3's default st
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Daniel Stutzbach
wrote:
> It's pretty easy to make Python source that works under 2.6 and 3.x. It's
> basically impossible to make Python source that works under 2.4/2.5 and
> 3.x.
This keeps getting quoted later in the thread so I just wanted to say
again that th
On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:16 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
2009/11/3 Brett Cannon :
I'm afraid there is some FUD going around here, which is
understandable since no one wants to burn a ton of time on something
that will be difficult or take a lot of time. But I have not heard
anyone in this email thread (or
On 04Nov2009 09:46, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
| On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:19:38 am Greg Ewing wrote:
| > Cameron Simpson wrote:
| > > Personally, I'm for the iteration spec in a lot of ways.
For the record, I've since, in mere hours or day, been convinced my
preference was misguided.
I _do_ still feel
On Nov 3, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
2009/11/3 Raymond Hettinger :
In all these matters, I think the users should get a vote. And
that vote
should be cast with their decision to stay with 2.x, or switch to
3.x, or
try to support both. We should not muck with their rational
decis
2009/11/3 sstein...@gmail.com :
> Not that anyone has asked yet, but here's my opinion on two issues that have
> been raised on the python-dev mailing list lately:
>
> +1 on 2.7 release with as much 3.0 "easy-port goo" as is practicable
> without delaying the product beyond the tentative sch
2009/11/3 sstein...@gmail.com :
>
> On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:26 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
>>
>> It really sounds like you're saying that switching to 3.x isn't worth the
>> cost to you, but you want to force people (including yourself) to do so
>> anyways, because ...?
>
> Because that's the future of
>> But only if NumPy would drop support for 2.x, for x < 7, right?
>> That would probably be many years in the future.
>
> Yes. Today, given the choice of supporting py 3.x and dropping python
> < 2.7 and continue support for 2.4, the latter is by far my preferred
> choice today (RHEL still requir
2009/11/3 Paul Moore :
> Has that port been integrated back into the zodb project?
That is on the way. Setuptools has been ported via the distribute
project, I'm hoping to make a test release of the zope.interface
branch (to test Python 2 compatibility mainly) soon, and then
hopefully merge it, et
Personally, I have found it useful in doco I write to have a section on
"Common Tasks", with recommended/suggested examples of how to do them and
short rationale for the chosen method. It seems to me that if .pick()
is frequently desired and "None of the standard solutions are obvious
or easily di
2009/11/3 Charles Cazabon :
> "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> It's pretty easy to make Python source that works under 2.6 and 3.x. It's
> basically impossible to make Python source that works under 2.4/2.5 and
> 3.x.
Without using 2to3, yes.
See http://code.google.com/p/python-incompatibility/ wh
I'm not aware of any currently active project that isn't in the process of
adding Py3 support (or who has already done so). By "most maintainers" I'm
referring to the long tail; the hundreds of 3rd party modules used in niche
cases and can be easily replaced by those who need the functionality the
I should maybe point out that although I'm generally +1 on
backporting, I'm not specifically anything on backporting the nonlocal
keyword. There are probably things that would help more from a
compatibility standpoint than that.
For example, from __future__ import unicode_literals doesn't switch
t
101 - 123 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
