Vinay Sajip wrote: > Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> Another pertinent question: "What are disadvantages of PEP 414 is adopted?" > > It's moot, but as I see it: the purpose of PEP 414 is to facilitate a single > codebase across 2.x and 3.x. However, it only does this if your 3.x interest is > 3.3+. If you also want to or need to support 3.0 - 3.2, it makes your workflow > more painful, because you can't run tests on 2.x or 3.3 and then run them on 3.2 > without an intermediate source conversion step - just like the 2to3 step that > people find painful when it's part of maintenance workflow, and which in part > prompted the PEP in the first place. I don't think it's fair to say it makes it *more* painful. Fair to say it doesn't make it less painful, but adding u'' to 3.3+ doesn't make it harder to port from 2.x to 3.1+. You're merely no better off with it than without it. Aside: in my opinion, people shouldn't actively support 3.0, or at least not advertise support for it, as it was end-of-lifed on the release of 3.1. As I see it, it is best to pretend that 3.0 never existed :) -- Steven
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