<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:solipsis@pitrou.net">solipsis@pitrou.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:28:31 +0100<br>
"Laurence Rowe" <<a href="mailto:l@lrowe.co.uk">l@lrowe.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> The approach that most people seem to have settled on for porting<br>
> libraries to Python 3 is to make a single codebase that is compatible with<br>
> both Python 2 and Python 3, perhaps making use of the six library.<br>
<br>
</div>Do you have evidence that "most" people have settled on that approach?<br>
(besides the couple of library writers who have commented on this<br>
thread)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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</div>
<div><br></div><div>Among other things, it means that:</div><div><br></div><div>* There's only one codebase</div><div>* If the conversion isn't perfect, you only have to fix it once</div><div>* Line numbers are the same</div>
<div>* There's no conversion step slowing down development</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And if there's official support for it, so much the better.</div><div><br></div></div>