On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 14:54, Zooko O'Whielacronx <zookog at gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: > > It occurred to me to wonder why I haven't investigated how hard it > would be to make my Python packages Python-3-compatible. That's right > -- I haven't even looked closely. I couldn't even tell you off the > top of my head what is in Python 3 that I would have to think about > except for the new unicode regime. I think the answer is that the > payoff is just *so* low to me at this point that it doesn't even > justify me taking 15 minutes to read "What's New In Python 3" or to > execute 2to3 on my smallest package and see what it does. > But the payoff is low for you because you want an object-capabilities system and Python 3 doesn't support that kind of use (nor was Python designed to support objcap in the first place, so it's already a strained use in 2.x). -Brett
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