RetroSearch Browse

Wed Dec 14 10:15:00 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114973.html

>     > In effect, 2to3 is a "purity" solution, but
>     > six is more like a "practicality" solution.
> 
>     This sounds like your personal interpretation. I see nothing "pure" in
>     2to3.
> 
> 
> It's "pure" in being optimized for a world where you just stop using
> Python 2 one day, and start using 3 the next, without any crossover support.

That's not true. 2to3 is well suited for supporting both 2 and 3 from
the same code base, and reduces the number of compromises you have to
make compared to an identical-source approach (more dramatically so
if you also want to support 2.5 or 2.4).

> Anyway, if you're supporting both 2 and 3, a common code base offers
> many attractions, so if it can be done, it will.

And 2to3 is a good approach to maintaining a common code base.

Regards,
Martin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114973.html below:

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