Lennart Regebro <regebro <at> gmail.com> writes:
Distribute helps with this. I think we might have to add a support in distribute to easily exclude the fixer that removes u''-prefixes, I don't remember if there is an "exclude" feature.
We might be at cross purposes here. I don't see how Distribute helps, because the use case I'm talking about is not about distributing or installing stuff, but iteratively changing and testing code which needs to work on 2.6+, 3.2 and 3.3+. 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. The PEP 314 approach seems to assume that that if things work on 3.3, they will work on 3.2/3.1/3.0 without any changes other than replacing u'xxx' with 'xxx'. In other words, you aren't supposed to want to e.g. test 3.2 and 3.3 iteratively, using a workflow which intersperses edits with running tests using 3.2 and running tests with 3.3. In any case, a single code base seems not to be possible across 2.6+/3.0/3.1/3.2/3.3+ using the PEP 314 approach, though of course one will be possible for just 2.6+/3.3+. Early adopters of 3.x seem to be penalised by this approach: I for one will try to use the unicode_literals approach wherever I can. Regards, Vinay Sajip