[IronPython] bytes behavior on 2.6...

[Michael Foord]

Dino Viehland wrote:
> I guess the good news here then is that our post-2.6 planning is still
> very unclear.  While I'd love us to move to 3.0 to get rid of our 
> Unicode issues it seems like there's not enough movement forward in the
> community at large - of course until then we're always going to have
> subtle Unicode compat issues :(.  
>   

Understood, but for example Resolver One would have a real problem with 
moving to Python 3 (right now anyway) as our users depend on libraries 
not available for Python 3.

The Unicode problems are therefore inevitable, but we've been bitten by 
it surprisingly few times (I don't recall any but there may have been a 
couple of occasions).

All the best,

Michael Foord

> My personal thoughts on this is that we could do a 2.6.1/2/3 after 2.6
> ships that focuses on lots of bug fixes and adding non-disruptive 
> 3.0 features under a -X:Python30 flag.  But we still have some time
> to figure out what to do here.  As always input is always welcome!
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com [mailto:users-
>> bounces at lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Michael Foord
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:50 PM
>> To: Discussion of IronPython
>> Subject: Re: [IronPython] bytes behavior on 2.6...
>>
>> Dino Viehland wrote:
>>     
>>> We have an active bug against our new bytes implementation for 2.6.
>>> Currently if you do:
>>>
>>> b'***'[0]
>>>
>>> you get back 42 as an int. This matches the 3.0 behavior of bytes but
>>> in CPython 2.6 you get back '*'.
>>>
>>> We could choose to match either form and then we could change it for
>>> 3.0. But because we only have Unicode strings today it seems like we
>>> might want to match the 3.0 behavior. Of course people might write
>>> code expecting the 2.6 behavior and they might be explicitly using
>>> byte literals as part of migrating to being compatible w/ 3.0.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have an opinion on what we should do here?
>>>
>>>       
>> Personally I think if you are targeting compatibility with Python 2.6
>> then you should be compatible with Python 2.6...
>>
>> I'm still hoping you will relent and maintain an IronPython 2.X branch
>> as long as Python 2.X is being developed...
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>     
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>       
>> ---
>>     
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users at lists.ironpython.com
>>> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>> http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
>> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.ironpython.com
>> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.ironpython.com
> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
>   


-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog