RetroSearch Browse

Fri Dec 9 11:03:41 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114825.html

On 12/8/2011 8:39 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> It's not the speed of 2to3 per se; this seems very reasonable for a
 > tool of its type > It's the overall process, which currently involves 
running 2to3
 > on an
> entire codebase (for example, using setup.py with flags to run 2to3
> during setup).

Oh. That explains the 'slow' complaint.

> However, 2to3 tools could be developed which are based on
> 2to3/lib2to3 and are *incremental* in nature; then as you edit and
> save a file, its processed version could be available very shortly
> afterwards (since we only need to translate the file that was saved)

I had assumed that people were aleady running 2to3 on a per edited file 
basis already. On a multi-core machine, I would think it possible to run 
2to3 and then a test on the result in a separate process while tests are 
running on the 2.x version.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114825.html below:

[Python-Dev] readd u'' literal support in 3.3?