[Python-Dev] readd u'' literal support in 3.3?

PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Tue Dec 13 20:02:45 CET 2011

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:28:31 +0100
> "Laurence Rowe" <l at lrowe.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > The approach that most people seem to have settled on for porting
> > libraries to Python 3 is to make a single codebase that is compatible
> with
> > both Python 2 and Python 3, perhaps making use of the six library.
> Do you have evidence that "most" people have settled on that approach?
> (besides the couple of library writers who have commented on this
> thread)

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

Among other things, it means that:

* There's only one codebase
* If the conversion isn't perfect, you only have to fix it once
* Line numbers are the same
* There's no conversion step slowing down development

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.

And if there's official support for it, so much the better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20111213/4ac32cdc/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list