On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:21:11 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > If the 2.x code depends on having u'xxx' literals, then 3.2 testing will > > potentially involve running a fixer on all files in the project every time a > > change is made, writing to a separate directory, or else a fixer which is > > integrated into the editing environment so it knows what changed. This is > > painful, and what motivated PEP 314 in the first place - which seems ironic. > > No, the real idea behind PEP 414 is that most ports that rely on it > simply won't support 3.2 - they will only target 3.3+. Hmm. It seems to me that this argument implies that PEP 414 is just as likely to *slow down* adoption of Python3 as it is to speed it up, since if this issue is as big a barrier as indicated, many potential porters may choose to wait until OS vendors are supporting 3.3 widely before starting their ports. We are clearly expecting that the reality is that the impact will be at worse neutral, and hopefully positive. --David
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