RetroSearch Browse

Tue Dec 13 17:21:04 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114954.html

On Dec 13, 2011, at 05:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:28:31 +0100
>"Laurence Rowe" <l at lrowe.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> The approach that most people seem to have settled on for porting  
>> libraries to Python 3 is to make a single codebase that is compatible with  
>> both Python 2 and Python 3, perhaps making use of the six library.
>
>Do you have evidence that "most" people have settled on that approach?
>(besides the couple of library writers who have commented on this
>thread)

I'm not sure there's any settling at all when it comes to Python 3 porting
yet. ;)

Sometimes, one code base works better, other times 2to3 works well.  I tend to
use the latter on pure-Python setuptools-based projects, and the former on
projects with C extensions, autoconf-based libraries.

-Barry

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114954.html below:

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