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

PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Dec 14 03:42:48 CET 2011

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:02:45 -0500
> PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> Well, with all due respect, this is hand-waving. Sure, if it's
> viable, then fine. The question is if it's "viable", precisely. That
> depends on which project we're talking about.

What I'm saying is that it has many characteristics that are desirable for
people who need to support Python 2 and 3 - which is likely the most common
use case for library developers.

> In effect, 2to3 is a "purity" solution, but
> > six is more like a "practicality" solution.
> This sounds like your personal interpretation. I see nothing "pure" in
> 2to3.

It's "pure" in being optimized for a world where you just stop using Python
2 one day, and start using 3 the next, without any crossover support.

As someone else pointed out, this is a more common case for application
developers than for library developers.  However, until the libraries are
ported, it's harder for the app developers to port their apps.

Anyway, if you're supporting both 2 and 3, a common code base offers many
attractions, so if it can be done, it will.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20111213/768ed839/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list