On 13/12/2011 21:10, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 12/13/2011 2:02 PM, PJ Eby wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net >> <mailto:solipsis at pitrou.net>> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:28:31 +0100 >> "Laurence Rowe" <l at lrowe.co.uk <mailto: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 think there is clearly enough 'some' people to justify official > support of a 2to23 (or more obscurely, 2to6, but I just got the point > that 6=2*3). More specifically "six" [1] is the name of Benjamin Peterson's support package to help write code that works on both 2 and 3. So the idea is that the conversion isn't just a straight syntax conversion - but that it [could] generate code using this library. All the best, Michael [1] http://packages.python.org/six/ > Beyond that, we don't know and don't need to know. > >> I've seen more projects doing it that way than maintaining dual code >> bases. In retrospect, it seems way more attractive than having to run a >> converter all the time, especially if I could run a "2to6" tool *once* >> and then simply write new code using six-isms >> >> Among other things, it means that: >> >> * There's only one codebase >> * If the conversion isn't perfect, you only have to fix it once >> * Line numbers are the same >> * There's no conversion step slowing down development >> >> So, I expect that if the approach is at all viable, it'll quickly become >> the One Obvious Way to do it. In effect, 2to3 is a "purity" solution, >> but six is more like a "practicality" solution. > > 2to3 is the practical solution for someone converting private Python 2 > code to run on Python 3 *instead* of Python 2, without looking back. > By the nature of things, such conversions will be private and > scattered over the next decade or so. If 2to3 works well, we will > never hear about them, except for the rare praise. Ditto for public > code whose author wishes to abandon Py 2. But that seems to rare so far. > > So we are really talking about upgrading public libraries and apps to > work with Python 3 *as well as* 'recent' Python 2 versions. For that, > a 'Python23' bridge seems to work for some. > > Looking ahead, there will in the future be a need for a 23to3 > converter to remove the then extraneous bridge code. But that will > need a semi-standard 'Python23' to work from. > -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
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