[Python-3000] Making 2to3 installable
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Sun Mar 16 22:11:15 CET 2008
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> >>> Cool! Is the next plan to make lib2to3 part of the stdlib in 2.6 and 3.0?
> >> Next, I want to have distutils (build_py) to invoke 2to3 as a
> >> command-line tool. I think this will already cover most uses
> >> that people may have.
> >
> > Are you serious?
>
> Wrt. invoking it from distutils: Why not?
Because it's far from perfect. I'd expect the success rate of running
2to3 over a 2.x package to be close to zero. I think this is one case
where it's better to let the developer run 2to3 and tweak the app
until it actually works.
> Wrt. this covering all uses: Surely the ones that people
> would use the library for, no?
I not understand. :-(
> >> Moving lib2to3 into the standard library would mean that the
> >> trunk and 3k copies diverge, right?
> >
> > Not necessarily. If you check it into 2.6 first, then merge and apply
> > it to its merged self, afterwards most changes would merge into 3.0
> > just fine.
>
> Ok, I'll do that.
>
> We should decide which of the copies remains the master, and
> which copies use merge-tracking. I would propose the sandbox
> copy remains the one where we check in stuff, so that 2to3
> can still get distributed as a stand-alone application.
That makes sense.
> > I'd like to clean it up and make it a toplevel package. But I may not
> > have the time, so until I do (or someone else does) it's best to keep
> > it inside lib2to3.
>
> Ok, I'll move it into lib2to3 then also.
Great!
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-3000
mailing list