Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> For example, if I'm using the (real source) py2.6 code, and I create a >> patch that works for me, it is ready for testing and submission. If >> I'm using the (generated) py3 code, then I first have to get a copy of >> the (source) 2.6, figure out how I *would* have written it there, then >> keep tweaking it so that the generator eventually puts out ... what I >> had originally written by hand. > > Yes, that's tedious. In that case, it is easier to edit the original > source, and then rerun 2to3, rather than editing the compiler output. > This technique has actually been the one recommended by Guido for migration for at least a year now. Clearly you can't have developers tweaking source on both sides of the "great divide", as one may have to re-cast bits of one's 2.6 code in order to get a satisfactory translation into 3.0. Once you start editing 3.0 source you have to either leave the 2.X world behind or accept a dual-source development. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4