Terry Reedy wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Terry Reedy <tjreedy <at> udel.edu> writes:
>>> Some of the people who need to support both late 2.x and 3.x would
>>> prefer to write 3.x code and backport. The OP of a current python-list
>>> thread asked whether there was any way to write something like
>>>
>>> @alias('__nonzero__')
>>> def __bool__(self): return True
>>
>> How about simply:
>> __nonzero__ = __bool__
>>
>>> I believe my own 3.0 code will mainly also need
>>> print() to print statement
>>
>> If this is only about supporting "late 2.x" (i.e., 2.6 and upwards), you
>> can
>> already write:
>
> People often do not specify. I suspect some are thinking back to 2.5,
> but that will change in the future.
i am the author of the original post quoted above. i wrote a parser
library (lepl) using 3.0. backporting to 2.6 was fairly easy, but it
still does not run with 2.5.
if i remember correctly it appeared that i was going to need separate
source files because of significant differences in syntax (print,
exceptions) as well as missing functionality (metaclasses, string
formatting).
andrew
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