Misleading wikipedia article on Python 3?

[John J. Lee]

"Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> writes:
[... snip stuff I don't follow ...]
> However, it *is* a design goal to make 2.6 so that transition to
> 3k becomes simpler. That's not a 3k feature, but a 2.6 one.

Not sure I care about this sort of thing for the purpses of my
question.  I just wanted to know: is it easy to make my code so it
runs on 2.6 and 3.0, without funny stuff like a code translator?
Seems wikipedia said "yes" and Guido said "no".


[...]
> to be seen. I personally believe that many projects won't need the 2to3
> tool, if they are willing to compromise on the notations used in the
> source code.

OK, so there's disagreement on this point amongst the Python 3
developers.  That's interesting (I don't mean that in a negative way).


[...]
>> It
>> seems to me that if I don't understand what the Python 3 developers
>> expect the practicalities to be, most other interested people won't
>> either ("interested" in the opposite sense to "disinterested" rather
>> than to "uninterested").
>
> I think comp.lang.python is then the wrong place to find out; the py3k
> list likely reaches more of these developers. OTOH, I don't know whether
> they all want to participate in a survey of their expectations...

I was also hoping to get a quick answer rather than a long discussion,
if any Python 3 developers were around to talk to the broader range of
people that read this list.  You have given your answers, I wonder if
anybody else will turn up.


> Rather than studying people's opinions, why don't you try to port your
> own projects to 3k, and report whether you found it practical to use
> a single source (assuming you would prefer such a solution for your
> own project)?

Because that might well tell me much less than asking a Python 3
developer, and yet take far more time, and fail to inform everybody
else.


John