<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:00 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <<a href="mailto:martin@v.loewis.de">martin@v.loewis.de</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">> So, please allow u'' in Python 3.0! With that change, my<br>
> porting/compatibility worried would be gone, and you would be able to<br>
> choose between the three porting strategies dependningon how your code<br>
> base and user base looks: 1. Clean break. 2. Syncing with 2to3, 3.<br>
> Supporting both 2.6 and 3.0.<br>
<br>
</div>It's as Nick says. Run 2to3. Can you please explain why that doesn't<br>
sound acceptable to you? By running 2to3, you *get* option 3; you<br>
support 2.6 and 3.0 from a single code base.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Well, he is basically required to compile his source code before he can run it.<br>This is quite uncommon for python code...<br><br></div></div>