On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:14:13 +0100, "\"Martin v. Löwis\"" < martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:
You are still only seeing this as a case of libraries with a small number of people developing them and making regular well defined releases. That is not how the world I am talking about looks.
Can you give me examples of such software? Are you perhaps talking about closed source software?
I'm not sure what software he was talking about. I can say that for the work I do on both Twisted and Divmod software, I'd be quite happy to see this feature. As either part of a migration path towards 3k _or_ as a feature entirely on its own merits, this would be very useful to me.
I'm a bit curious about why Thomas said this sort of thing results in fragile code. Twisted has been using __future__ imports for years and they've never been a problem. Twisted currently supports Python 2.3 through Python 2.5, and the only thing that's really difficult about that is subtle changes in library behavior, not syntax.
I wasn't talking about future imports. I was talking about writing Python
2.6 code and expecting it to work *the same way* in 3.0 without
modification. It requires all programmers working on the project to have
knowledge of how 3.0 and 2.6 differ. *I* can't even look at code and tell
you how 2.6 and 3.0 will differ. Since Lennart was talking specifically
about projects with a large number of developers, I do not believe this is a
safe assumption to make. A simple preprocessor step involving 2to3 requires
no such knowledge. Or, alternatively, a preprocessor step involving 3to2,
which I think will result in better code. Unfortunately I don't have time to
work on either anytime soon.
--
Thomas Wouters